Chances Of Western Only Accepting New Mcat For 2016/17 Cycle?

[polos12]

VR cutoff for non swomen was 11. Which is 95th percentile. 

Thanks.

[Neurophilic]

There was no way to avoid the 'discrepancy'. I'm fairly sure they announced that they were only going to evaluate the 3 sections before applications were due so they wouldn't have known what the score distribution would be like until later.

 

They keep GPA low and VR/CARS high because they believe it correlates better with physician success, as a poster mentioned. So what else are they supposed to do? 130 CARS/12 VR? That wouldn't give them the # of interviewees they needed. They just optimized it as best they could. Realize that the blame here should not be on Western, but rather on the old MCAT which had horribly uneven percentile scores. There was a huge difference between 10-11-12 VR but you could never get a score between those benchmarks. How is that Western's fault?

 

Also, Western is essentially being punished for being transparent about their process. If they were like other schools (eg. Queen's) and just didn't tell us anything, then no one would be here complaining.

 

For all we know Queen's throws darts at a dartboard to select their interviewees. How can you be sure every other school treats the two MCAT's fairly? Is it not a problem that people with 125 CARS got Queen's interviews when *presumably* you still needed a 10 VR? But no, the system is only broken when it doesn't favour you, right.

Sad part is they actually didn't announce anything or inform anyone that they would be evaluating only 3 sections. WRT Queen's nobody knows that you need to have a minimum of 10 on VR. It's not stated anywhere and is simply speculation so we don't know if there is a discrepancy at all. To be honest I'd rather not know about a discrepancy than know about it like Western. I assure you I would feel the same even if it was in my favour. The system is not only broken when it does not favour me. It is broken in general. I'm just trying to say that perhaps there was a better solution for that broken system. Of course that better solution wouldn't fix the broken system but it would be better nevertheless. As to your argument that it is the fault of the old VR and that the new one didn't align with it it, this argument isn't valid at all. a 128 aligns quite nicely with an 11. the bottom end of the percentiles for the 11 and 128 are 85 and 82 respectively. However, when you compare 11 with 130 you get bottom end percentiles of 85 and 94 respectively. Even a score of 129 has a bottom end percentile of 88 which is much more appropriate than a 130. If Western was fair and didn't largely favour the old MCAT there was ways in which the two exams were fairly compatible for eliminating applicants.  

[polos12]

I think the complaints are entirely valid. Given the 97th percentile verbal score, that essentially becomes the sole criterion on which interview invites are based (given the lax wGPA and other MCAT subsection scores).

 

Now then, is looking at verbal as the only criterion really supposed to be a holistic assessment?

 

I am not sure how people are yelling "entitlement!!". Western is a public university, supported in part by tax payer dollars. So no, they really can't do whatever the heck they want with respect to requirements. A bit of accountability is not unreasonable.

 

Given that the new MCAT scores provided more correct and reliable (ref. aamc.org), the new CARS cut-offs (with more questions/lengthier format) could have been selected objectively rather than simply rounding off to next level/step of the band to set it to 97th%ile, if not considering/using the all four sections per aamc theory; adjustment could have been been made to old VR cut-offs. possibly expect new mcat cut-offs to be as:  BBFLS 127; CPFBS 127; CARS 128; Total 382?

 

aamc.org ref: The new exam provides more reliable scores, supporting better decisions. The architects of the new MCAT exam understood that medical schools need reliable information about applicants’ academic preparation. In response, they designed each section of the new exam with more test questions than were included on the old exam. More questions per section provide more information about applicants. The new scores are estimated with greater precision. Improved precision means improved decision making, allowing you to consider carefully applicants’ strengths and weaknesses across the four sections of the new exam as you judge your applicants’ fit with your curriculum. The new exam was designed with fairness in mind.

[chemiosmosis11]

No one's entitled to anything, and yes it's wrong to think that you are entitled. Then again, from the perspective of the premed, it's rough out there, and the years of hard work can make it seem that you are entitled. Thus, it's not unreasonable to see why people are disappointed, in addition to what seems to be a discrepancy between how the old and new mcat were treated.

Just to clarify what people seem to be arguing:

 

Old mcat

11: 84-95

 

New published mcat percentiles (I think?):

128: 83-90

129: 90-95

130: 95-98

 

I mean, it seems like if you get either 128 or 129 you would've gotten 11 on the old exam, thus meeting Western's cutoffs. It's as if they split all the people who would've gotten 11's into two groups.

Either many people miraculously this year scored extremely high in CARS in canada, or western favoured the old mcat, or some other factor entirely. But who knows? What's done is done and the only thing you can really do about it is rewrite and get that 130 if Western is in your sights.

[alsdjflks]

 

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

Agree with what you're saying about hard work, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. And, it is possible the MCAT2015 could have had odd results, which created the higher cutoffs for the new exam.

 

Example:

 

Old MCAT: 1000 applicants. 10/11/10 required to trim the pool to 225.

New MCAT: 1000 applicants. 127/130/127 required to trim the pool to 225.

 

 

Therefore, no MCAT was favoured, and the pools were odd. However, as I mentioned, lines have to be drawn somewhere, If it wasn't 130 CARS, it was 130 BB? Pick your poison right? And also, one other thing to consider about distributions is that the 130 cars limits you to about 3% of the population, however, it could just have been that a lot of 130+ scorers also scored 126+ in other subjects, while 11 VR scorers did not, so increasing VR to 12 wasn't required. In short, odd distributions. Hopefully that wasn't convoluted.

You don't have to "pick a poison". You simply elevate each cutoff a tiny bit until you reach the desired number. It's silly to neglect the other MCAT sections because the job of the AAMC is to make the make the MCAT (all of the sections), predictive of future physician success. They even JUST revamped it last year to accommodate the changing landscape of medicine. But let's just put extra weight on this random section.

 

If the admissions process is any indication to how the institution operates, I don't even think I'll apply to UWO, if I have to reapply.

[ralk]

No one's entitled to anything, and yes it's wrong to think that you are entitled. Then again, from the perspective of the premed, it's rough out there, and the years of hard work can make it seem that you are entitled. Thus, it's not unreasonable to see why people are disappointed, in addition to what seems to be a discrepancy between how the old and new mcat were treated.

Just to clarify what people seem to be arguing:

 

Old mcat

11: 84-95

 

New published mcat percentiles (I think?):

128: 83-90

129: 90-95

130: 95-98

 

I mean, it seems like if you get either 128 or 129 you would've gotten 11 on the old exam, thus meeting Western's cutoffs. It's as if they split all the people who would've gotten 11's into two groups.

Either many people miraculously this year scored extremely high in CARS in canada, or western favoured the old mcat, or some other factor entirely. But who knows? What's done is done and the only thing you can really do about it is rewrite and get that 130 if Western is in your sights.

 

Keep in mind these adjusted percentiles were not available when Western made its interview cutoffs. The previously published percentages were a bit more granular, making the 11VR/130CARS split a bit more defensible. Hopefully this new data will allow Western to provide a more comparable split in cutoffs if they continue to accept both versions next year.

 

You don't have to "pick a poison". You simply elevate each cutoff a tiny bit until you reach the desired number. It's silly to neglect the other MCAT sections because the job of the AAMC is to make the make the MCAT (all of the sections), predictive of future physician success. They even JUST revamped it last year to accommodate the changing landscape of medicine. But let's just put extra weight on this random section.

 

If the admissions process is any indication to how the institution operates, I don't even think I'll apply to UWO, if I have to reapply.

 

Western's always put the emphasis on the VR/CARS section, followed by the Bio section. These are, unsurprisingly, the sections with the most evidence behind them for success for future physicians. This year was an extreme example, just as the previous years' 12 Bio cutoff was a bit extreme, but it's still all in keeping with Western's past approach. Hopefully as the school eventually transitions away from the old MCAT and everyone starts getting more comfortable considering the new MCAT section, these insanely-high cutoffs can be tempered a bit.

 

I think it's fine to consider how a school behaves during the admissions process when ultimately choosing a school, but can I point out how foolish it would be to not apply at all if you have a reasonable chance at being accepted? Get picky after the acceptance, not before!

[anonymouspls]

Agree with what you're saying about hard work, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. And, it is possible the MCAT2015 could have had odd results, which created the higher cutoffs for the new exam.

 

Example:

 

Old MCAT: 1000 applicants. 10/11/10 required to trim the pool to 225. 

New MCAT: 1000 applicants. 127/130/127 required to trim the pool to 225. 

 

 

Therefore, no MCAT was favoured, and the pools were odd. However, as I mentioned, lines have to be drawn somewhere, If it wasn't 130 CARS, it was 130 BB? Pick your poison right? And also, one other thing to consider about distributions is that the 130 cars limits you to about 3% of the population, however, it could just have been that a lot of 130+ scorers also scored 126+ in other subjects, while 11 VR scorers did not, so increasing VR to 12 wasn't required. In short, odd distributions. Hopefully that wasn't convoluted. 

 

The problem isn't that the CARS cutoff was 130. I interviewed this year with the new MCAT, so I would not be bothered at all by the fact that CARS is at 130 EXCEPT for the fact that the VR cutoff was 11... compare the last AAMC published cutoffs for the old MCAT with the 2016 MCAT cutoffs, a 130 CARS matches exactly with a 12 VR, NOT a 11 VR. Either 2015 was a miraculous year such that an abnormally large # of people in Canada did very well on CARS compared to the rest of the world, or the old MCAT was favoured. 

 

So no, this is not at all the same as bio jumping to a 12, because in that situation EVERY applicant was screened the same way, there was an even playing field... I don't care who you are, you have to be in crazy land if you think that there was an even playing field this year. You say that "no MCAT was favoured" when that flies in the face of simple logic... they WANTED to interview a sizable number of old MCAT applicants, that's why the cutoffs were tilted to favour one side. It doesn't matter how much mental gymnastics you go through, there is no other way to explain the situation we had this year. Are you seriously telling me that there is no better way to trim the applicant pool than 127/127/130? really?

 

we don't have to "pick our poison". the correct number of applicants could have been carved out of a different score distribution. you can look at the psych/soc section, increase one of the 127's, what ever... a 130 CARS is unprecedented in Canada for a cutoff, it's not the right answer, unless you're trying to artificially disqualify the MCAT applicants for a certain year that is... again I very strongly believe that this was the case.

 

The sooner OMSAS schools stop accepting the old MCAT, the faster we can stop having this problem... fact of the matter is the competitive old MCAT pool is shrinking every year, so this problem will only get worse if they continue to accept both MCATs. a very easy way to not have a 130 CARS cutoff is to look at the psych/soc section of the new MCAT, but they obviously can't do that as long as the old MCAT scores are in consideration...

[alsdjflks]

 

[ralk]

The problem isn't that the CARS cutoff was 130. I interviewed this year with the new MCAT, so I would not be bothered at all by the fact that CARS is at 130 EXCEPT for the fact that the VR cutoff was 11... compare the last AAMC published cutoffs for the old MCAT with the 2016 MCAT cutoffs, a 130 CARS matches exactly with a 12 VR, NOT a 11 VR. Either 2015 was a miraculous year such that an abnormally large # of people in Canada did very well on CARS compared to the rest of the world, or the old MCAT was favoured. 

 

So no, this is not at all the same as bio jumping to a 12, because in that situation EVERY applicant was screened the same way, there was an even playing field... I don't care who you are, you have to be in crazy land if you think that there was an even playing field this year. You say that "no MCAT was favoured" when that flies in the face of simple logic... they WANTED to interview a sizable number of old MCAT applicants, that's why the cutoffs were tilted to favour one side. It doesn't matter how much mental gymnastics you go through, there is no other way to explain the situation we had this year. Are you seriously telling me that there is no better way to trim the applicant pool than 127/127/130? really?

 

we don't have to "pick our poison". the correct number of applicants could have been carved out of a different score distribution. you can look at the psych/soc section, increase one of the 127's, what ever... a 130 CARS is unprecedented in Canada for a cutoff, it's not the right answer, unless you're trying to artificially disqualify the MCAT applicants for a certain year that is... again I very strongly believe that this was the case.

 

The sooner OMSAS schools stop accepting the old MCAT, the faster we can stop having this problem... fact of the matter is the competitive old MCAT pool is shrinking every year, so this problem will only get worse if they continue to accept both MCATs. a very easy way to not have a 130 CARS cutoff is to look at the psych/soc section of the new MCAT, but they obviously can't do that as long as the old MCAT scores are in consideration...

 

Again, I will ask you to tone down your rhetoric. It's one thing to imply the admissions group at Western were in error for setting their policy, it's quite another to insinuate a nefarious motive or deliberate bias behind that decision without evidence.

[chemiosmosis11]

Again, I will ask you to tone down your rhetoric. It's one thing to imply the admissions group at Western were in error for setting their policy, it's quite another to insinuate a nefarious motive or deliberate bias behind that decision without evidence.

 

+1 to this.

 

Not trying to gang up on anyone, but perhaps a better clarification: We don't know the numbers that Western received, how many people from each MCAT pool were interviewed, or what numbers game they did. Everything said is pure speculation, and although I would lean towards there being a clear problem, it's false to make that fact when nothing official was stated.

[sdj78we9jtf2o3mgfvj298j]

+1 to this.

 

Not trying to gang up on anyone, but perhaps a better clarification: We don't know the numbers that Western received, how many people from each MCAT pool were interviewed, or what numbers game they did. Everything said is pure speculation, and although I would lean towards there being a clear problem, it's false to make that fact when nothing official was stated.

To add on, what bias would Western have for old MCAT writers? There is no reason why they would favour one test over another without a good reason (probably just came down to the proportion of MCAT writers in the applicant pool). In fact, to insinuate that they had a bias for one of the tests is to suggest that they aren't interested in selecting for the best applicants, which I don't think would be the case for Western as a medical institution.

[applicant111]

Woah. I wasn't aware that this was such a sensitive topic.

I currently have a 11 VR score, but I will be applying for the first time this upcoming cycle.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether I should write the new MCAT or take my chances with the 11 VR.

[_ _]

Woah. I wasn't aware that this was such a sensitive topic.

I currently have a 11 VR score, but I will be applying for the first time this upcoming cycle.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether I should write the new MCAT or take my chances with the 11 VR.

Do NOT rewrite. 

[applicant111]

Do NOT rewrite. 

Haha. Well looks like I have my answer. Thanks.

[veritas11]

Woah. I wasn't aware that this was such a sensitive topic.

I currently have a 11 VR score, but I will be applying for the first time this upcoming cycle.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether I should write the new MCAT or take my chances with the 11 VR.

i honestly wouldnt risk it if i were you but it depends on the other sections. what's your total score? (/does it meet this year's cutoffs at least)

[applicant111]

i honestly wouldnt risk it if i were you but it depends on the other sections. what's your total score? (/does it meet this year's cutoffs at least)

I had a 14/13/11 (P/B/V)

[_ _]

I had a 14/13/11 (P/B/V)

Again, don't even think about it. That gets you western, Sask interviews and likely manitoba.

 

I'm sure you would do great again, but imagine if you got 1 more question wrong and got a 129 CARS? Not worth the risk

[Cyclosarin]

The angst is so high in this thread about using the old MCAT scores that I thought I'd post this update:

 

"Effective July 1, 2017, for the 2017-18 application cycle, all applicants must have written the MCAT test introduced in April 2015. Test scores from the previous version of the MCAT test will no longer be valid."

[ralk]

The angst is so high in this thread about using the old MCAT scores that I thought I'd post this update:

 

"Effective July 1, 2017, for the 2017-18 application cycle, all applicants must have written the MCAT test introduced in April 2015. Test scores from the previous version of the MCAT test will no longer be valid."

 

Thank you for sharing! This is welcome news and they were good to give plenty of warning, with over a year before that new policy kicks in.

[anonymouspls]

The angst is so high in this thread about using the old MCAT scores that I thought I'd post this update:

 

"Effective July 1, 2017, for the 2017-18 application cycle, all applicants must have written the MCAT test introduced in April 2015. Test scores from the previous version of the MCAT test will no longer be valid."

 

One more year of this mummer's farce then... in before 131 CARS 10 verbal cutoff

[mia1234]

does this mean psych will not be considered again on the upcoming cycle ? 

[Neurophilic]

does this mean psych will not be considered again on the upcoming cycle ? 

likely not