U of T EngSci Online Student Profile: What Differs

Engineering Science applicants complete the same mandatory Engineering Supplemental Application as every other U of T Engineering applicant: the Online Student Profile with its timed Personal Profile videos. There is no EngSci-specific form. What is different is the pool you are competing in, the program you are asking to join, and therefore what your three answers need to show. This guide covers only what changes for EngSci; the general format lives in the OSP guide.

By the AcceptMe team 8 min read Updated

What the supplemental application is, in one paragraph

After OUAC receives your application you get access to the Engineering Applicant Portal. The Supplemental Application there has untimed sections (program ranking, self-reported grades, an extracurricular section with references from supervisors or teachers, documents) and the timed Personal Profile, which U of T currently describes as “three randomly-selected, timed video questions” on Kira Talent, taking about 30 minutes, completed in one sitting with no redo, after unlimited practice questions. The faculty says the responses are evaluated on reasoning and communication by trained members of the U of T community and that “there is no ‘right’ answer.” Per-question prep and response times are not stated on the current page; confirm them in your portal. The U of T Engineering OSP guide covers the format, the timing traps and fifteen general practice questions. Read that first; everything below assumes it.

Dates for Fall 2027 entry. U of T recommends submitting the OUAC application by November 7, 2026. The Engineering Supplemental Application and documents are due December 1, 2026 for early consideration in the February and March rounds, and January 15, 2027 is the final deadline. Decisions come in February, March and May rounds. The faculty’s wording is that if you do not complete the Supplemental Application, “your application will not be considered.” Confirm on U of T Engineering’s deadlines page.

What is different for EngSci

The pool

U of T publishes general competitive averages by program. Engineering Science sits in the top band with Computer and Electrical Engineering, at low to mid 90s, against high 80s to low 90s for Chemical, Civil, Industrial, Materials, Mechanical and Mineral. The average is calculated on the five prerequisites: ENG4U, MCV4U, MHF4U, SCH4U and SPH4U. The faculty is explicit that meeting the average does not guarantee admission. Practically: everyone in the EngSci pool has the marks, so the profile is where a reader finds a reason to choose you, and where an applicant who is marginal on average can still make the case.

The ranking

The supplemental application asks you to rank at least two and up to four engineering programs. U of T says your choice is “a factor among many” and that when spaces are limited and applicants are equally competitive, it gives consideration to applicants who listed U of T Engineering among their top choices. There is no published rule about how an EngSci-first applicant is handled for their second choice. Rank honestly, and make sure the second program is one you would actually take.

The program

This is what should change your answers. EngSci describes itself as a 2+2: two foundation years, then one of nine majors (Aerospace, Biomedical Systems, Electrical and Computer, Energy Systems, Engineering Mathematics Statistics and Finance, Engineering Physics, Machine Intelligence, Robotics, Transportation Systems). It says it differs from the core programs in three ways: it is delivered at a more academically demanding level, it contains more mathematics, science and engineering with an emphasis on “deriving results using a first principles approach,” and every fourth-year student completes an independent research thesis. It calls the pace accelerated and the experience “an intense academic challenge,” and it names the students it wants: “driven to work independently and collaboratively with others,” with “determination and resiliency.” First year includes the Praxis design series, working in teams with community stakeholders on real problems in the City of Toronto, alongside calculus, linear algebra, programming, mechanics, circuits and materials.

What to emphasize in three timed answers

  • Derivation, not recall. The faculty asks for reasoning across the board; EngSci says first principles in its own description. If a question invites you to explain something, explain it from what you know rather than from what you were told, and say where the explanation runs out.
  • Sustained difficulty. Accelerated pace and an intense challenge mean the reader is looking for evidence that you have kept going at something hard for a long time, and that you know what you do when you fall behind. A tidy success story is worth less here than an honest account of a term that went badly and what you changed.
  • Independent and collaborative, both. EngSci says both, in that order. Have one story of working alone on something with no deadline but your own, and one of a team where you were not the smartest person in the room.
  • A reason for EngSci rather than the core program. Anyone applying EngSci first should be able to say in two sentences why the 2+2 and the thesis matter to them, and name the major they are leaning toward without pretending to be certain. If you cannot, rank a core program first.

Eight practice prompts for EngSci applicants

These are AcceptMe’s practice prompts, written to what U of T says it reads for, reasoning and communication, and to what EngSci says about itself: first principles, pace, independence, collaboration, resilience, and a major chosen after two years. They are not U of T’s questions, and you will not see them in the Personal Profile. Run each on the prep and answer timings shown in your portal, one take.

  1. Pick something you use every day and explain, from first principles, why it is built the way it is. Where does your explanation stop being sure?
  2. Tell us about the longest you have stayed with a problem that did not want to be solved. What did the middle of it look like?
  3. Describe a term, season or project where you fell behind. What did you notice first, what did you change, and did the change hold?
  4. EngSci asks you to choose a major after two foundation years. Which of the nine are you leaning toward, what made you lean, and what would change your mind?
  5. Tell us about something you worked out on your own that you could have looked up. Why did you not look it up, and what did you get from working it out?
  6. Describe a team where you were clearly not the strongest member. What did you contribute, and what did you take from the people who were?
  7. A result you were confident in turned out to be wrong. How did you find out, and what do you do differently when you check your work now?
  8. You have a free year with no courses and a modest budget. What question would you spend it on, and what is the first experiment?

A worked answer

Sample answer to prompt 1, about 2 minutes 15

The thing I use every day is a bicycle, and the part I want to explain is why the front brake does most of the stopping. When I first noticed it, I assumed the front brake was just bigger. It is not; on my bike they are identical. The real reason is that braking is a force at the ground pushing backward, and it acts below the centre of mass of the bike and me, so it creates a torque that tries to rotate us forward over the front wheel. That torque pushes the front wheel harder into the road and lifts the rear. Friction at each tire is roughly proportional to how hard that tire is pressed down, so as you brake harder the front tire can grip more and the rear can grip less, until the rear is barely touching and contributes almost nothing. That is why the back wheel skids first if you grab both brakes: it runs out of grip long before the front does. I tested it, badly, in a car park, by braking hard with only the rear and measuring the skid mark, then only the front, and the front stopped me in about two thirds the distance. Where my explanation runs out is the proportionality. I know friction rises with normal force, but I do not actually know that it is linear for a rubber tire on asphalt, and I suspect it is not, because racing tires seem to care a lot about temperature and pressure in ways a simple friction coefficient does not predict. That is the bit I would want to learn properly.

The answer derives the effect from a force and a torque, names the assumption it depends on, reports a rough test, and stops exactly where the applicant’s understanding stops. That last move is what a first-principles reader is listening for, and it is the move most applicants skip because it feels like admitting weakness.

Mistakes specific to EngSci applicants

  • Assuming the marks carry you. In a low-to-mid-90s pool they are the entry fee.
  • Three achievement stories and no reasoning. U of T names reasoning; EngSci names first principles. At least one answer should show you working something out live.
  • Ranking EngSci first because it is the hardest to get into. The program describes an accelerated pace and a mandatory thesis. Readers can tell a prestige choice from a considered one, and the alternate-choice rules are not published, so rank what you would actually attend.
  • Preparing for the old format. The current page describes three timed video questions and no written response. Check your portal for the exact timings rather than an older guide, including ours.
  • Waiting for January 15. December 1 puts you in the February and March rounds with the same profile.

Where to go from here

Start with the U of T Engineering OSP guide for the format and fifteen more practice questions that apply to EngSci unchanged. Most EngSci applicants are also submitting the Waterloo AIF and video and the McMaster Engineering Kira application, each with different timings, and the answer-length guide puts every Ontario program’s clock in one table. When you are ready, run an AcceptMe custom interview at U of T’s timings with a question you have not seen; if the transcript shows a story where you meant to show reasoning, you have found the thing to fix.

Keep reading