Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

EthicsForBreakfast

Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

EthicsForBreakfast last won the day on January 23 2018

EthicsForBreakfast had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About EthicsForBreakfast

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,299 profile views
  1. Putting yourself in other peoples' shoes, recognizing inequalities and advocating for those who may be disproportionately affected. All important qualities in a physician.
  2. In my opinion if you can't standardize a standardized test against people who wrote it previous cycles, the point of your standardized test is moot. I'm pretty frustrated. To me it makes more sense to add full dates with full exams vs. a shortened format. The 6:30 am start time? Ridiculous and my guess is unprecedented. How are students going to use public transport to get to the facility that early? Oh right, we're made of money if we can write the MCAT so why not just hop in a cab. 5 hours and 45 minutes is still a significant chunk of time and without that 30 minute break to refuel, use the facilities etc, my guess is that the exam will feel longer and stamina will continue to be an issue. Less questions means there's more at stake as one question holds more weight in the final score. More weight AND slightly less time? Not a good solution. Lots of research goes into these exams... they started preparing for the 2015 MCAT in 2008. While I get that we're in new territory with this pandemic, it's frustrating that this new method is going to count as one of my 7 lifetime exams/ 3 per year exams/ 4 per two consecutive years exams and it might go horribly. We're also paying the same amount as those who took the full-lengths and I'm not exactly sure why. So yeah to sum it all up, I'm disappointed. There was already a bunch of factors that are barriers to succeeding on the MCAT this cycle, but for them to go and change every single exam to this new format solidifies that those writing this year shouldn't be compared to those who have written it in the past. My best solution I can think of was adding more full days, but I guess that wasn't possible in the eyes of the AAMC.
  3. I. Ranking of Applicants for Offer of Admission All applicants who were selected for interview and participated in the interview process are ranked by the Admissions Committee. 1. General MD Program, MD/PhD Program Stream, and Bilingual Stream All applicants who participated in the interview process will be ranked in their respective pool by calculating a composite score in the following way: (15% AGPA + 40% MCAT® + 35% MMI + 10% CASPer®) X (rural co-efficient if >0) X (academic co-efficient if >0) X (socioeconomic and cultural diversity co-efficient if >0) Applicants' component scores with differing variances are standardized by determining Z-scores within their respective applicant pool before mathematically combining the component scores to calculate the composite scores and ranking for applicants for offer of admission. The (old) applicant information bulletin states the above, but I'm confused by the last bit. Essentially my question is whether it's advantageous to apply to a stream because you're only competing against the people in the stream initially? I'm not too sure what they mean when they say they "mathematically combine the component scores to calculate composite scores". So if you ranked top of your stream because say like 5 people applied but you didn't rank highly overall, what would this mean?
×
×
  • Create New...