How do they look at MCAT scores?

[Luna Lovegood]

Does anyone know how the adcom look at MCAT scores? Is it just a cutoff thing, or does it actually factor into whether you will get an interview/acceptance?

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

So long as you meet the cut-offs, they only look at MCAT scores post-interview. It is unknown exactly how they play into final acceptance/rejection decisions. The general assumption is that they are not as important at UBC as other schools in Canada and a weaker MCAT score can be overcome with a strong overall application (it just wouldn't make sense for them to bother interviewing people with low MCAT scores if they knew that their low scores would disqualify them post-interview). 

[Vendar]

Hey Luna,

I believe that MCAT only plays a role after the interview (if you meet the cut offs). People have speculated that its 25% GPA 25% MCAT and 50% Interview score, but this is not confirmed. If you look at the accepted/rejected thread, you can see that MCAT does play a role. There was a someone with an above average interview score that was rejected and the only "weak" part of their application was their MCAT. 

 

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

3 hours ago, Vendar said:

Hey Luna,

I believe that MCAT only plays a role after the interview (if you meet the cut offs). People have speculated that its 25% GPA 25% MCAT and 50% Interview score, but this is not confirmed. If you look at the accepted/rejected thread, you can see that MCAT does play a role. There was a someone with an above average interview score that was rejected and the only "weak" part of their application was their MCAT. 

 

NAQ also plays heavily into post-interview selection. Definitely not just the 25/25/50 split.

[InstantRamen]

I can say that my MCAT score was extremely uncompetitive and I was accepted. I am unsure how they calculate it, but if its the only weak part of your application, I can't imagine it being worth much? I'm only speculating, as things change or my experience might not reveal anything. lol

[pm101ta]

25 minutes ago, InstantRamen said:

I can say that my MCAT score was extremely uncompetitive and I was accepted. I am unsure how they calculate it, but if its the only weak part of your application, I can't imagine it being worth much? I'm only speculating, as things change or my experience might not reveal anything. lol

What was your score/breakdown?

[lab2185]

I can say after having interviewed two years and been rejected with above average both times... that MCAT definitely plays a large role post interview. You can see by looking at the stats that the average was 515 last year. I too was under the impression that it didn't matter. But unfortunately it does. The only way I can see how it might not matter is if the break down that someone provided above is correct and you have very strong marks and a very strong interview than it may be possible for it a bad score to be overcome. 

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

2 hours ago, lab2185 said:

I can say after having interviewed two years and been rejected with above average both times... that MCAT definitely plays a large role post interview. You can see by looking at the stats that the average was 515 last year. I too was under the impression that it didn't matter. But unfortunately it does. The only way I can see how it might not matter is if the break down that someone provided above is correct and you have very strong marks and a very strong interview than it may be possible for it a bad score to be overcome. 

The current class has at least a couple 508s and multiple 510 overall scores and people with 124 in CARS. And some of these people's applications were accompanied by similarly below average GPAs, so it is difficult to say what got them accepted (presumably NAQ and interview). Overall, it seems that low mcat scores can be overcome at UBC, unlike many other schools in Canada.

[yych208]

Just want to bring up that most people accepted with low MCATs (sub 510) are non-trad.

I have yet to see any trad applicant getting accepted with a low MCAT.

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

3 minutes ago, yych208 said:

Just want to bring up that most people accepted with low MCATs (sub 510) are non-trad.

I have yet to see any trad applicant getting accepted with a low MCAT.

Well as a member of the UBC MD 2021 class, I disagree. I am personally friends with multiple 22-24 year olds who are fairly traditional applicants and got in with low MCAT scores. 

And don't forget, the higher average MCAT of accepted applicants doesn't necessarily  mean that it was their MCAT that got them in. To some extent, applicants with above average GPAs are more likely to get in and also likely to have a similarly above average MCAT score. 

[FlameGrilledChicken]

On 9/21/2017 at 10:53 AM, OwnerOfTheTARDIS said:

NAQ also plays heavily into post-interview selection. Definitely not just the 25/25/50 split.

I believe the idea that is a 25/25/50 split comes from a leaked document of post-interview scores from a few years ago. Having said that, this document might be a bit dated now but it's possible that the current post-interview ranking is not very different from what it was a few years ago? This would be odd though because NAQ has 0 weight post-interview but at the same time I know 2-3 applicants with stellar NAQs (36+) who were rejected with average interviews but low MCAT scores and other applicants with what appeared to be average AQ/NAQ (although they never got their scores) who were accpeted post-interview with super high MCAT scores (519+). 

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

On 9/28/2017 at 5:43 PM, Nandos said:

I believe the idea that is a 25/25/50 split comes from a leaked document of post-interview scores from a few years ago. Having said that, this document might be a bit dated now but it's possible that the current post-interview ranking is not very different from what it was a few years ago? This would be odd though because NAQ has 0 weight post-interview but at the same time I know 2-3 applicants with stellar NAQs (36+) who were rejected with average interviews but low MCAT scores and other applicants with what appeared to be average AQ/NAQ (although they never got their scores) who were accpeted post-interview with super high MCAT scores (519+). 

I say that NAQ is definitely weighted post interview because in one year, I was rejected post-interview with high GPA, high MCAT, and an 'average' interview score but low NAQ while a friend was waitlisted and then rejected with lower GPA, lower MCAT and a 'below average' interview score but extremely high NAQ. The only thing that would have got them waitlisted over me was their NAQ. Fortunately we were both accepted together the following year so it all worked out for the best  

That document was leaked I think 5ish years ago from an uncredited source - I wouldn't have called it trustworthy then and I definitely think it highly likely that it has changed multiple times since then. 

[yych208]

On 2017-09-30 at 1:06 AM, OwnerOfTheTARDIS said:

I say that NAQ is definitely weighted post interview because in one year, I was rejected post-interview with high GPA, high MCAT, and an 'average' interview score but low NAQ while a friend was waitlisted and then rejected with lower GPA, lower MCAT and a 'below average' interview score but extremely high NAQ. The only thing that would have got them waitlisted over me was their NAQ. Fortunately we were both accepted together the following year so it all worked out for the best  

That document was leaked I think 5ish years ago from an uncredited source - I wouldn't have called it trustworthy then and I definitely think it highly likely that it has changed multiple times since then. 

Could you also speculate on how rec letters come into play? 

[OwnerOfTheTARDIS]

1 hour ago, yych208 said:

Could you also speculate on how rec letters come into play? 

Really have no idea - I used the same references both application rounds because I felt that they would be quite strong. I honestly can't imagine that many people have 'bad' references (we all pick references who we think like us ), so I tend to suspect that they are not weighed as heavily as other more objective components of the application. From my experience looking at references when taking on new volunteers and employees at a non-profit I was part of, 99% of references are highly similar and therefore almost meaningless in terms of differentiating candidates from one another. 

But this is entirely personal opinion - I have no idea how references are evaluated and UBC has not made any public statements. I do believe that UBC endeavors to have a fair, well-justified admission process, which motivates my opinion that reference letters may help identify red flags and perhaps a few particularly noteworthy applicants, but wouldn't help differentiate between the majority of applicants in the middle 90% of the pool. 

[Popetopus]

I imagine that NAQ is evaluated post-interview in some capacity, inclusive of the fair, holistic nature we understand about the admissions process. Though, it does make me wonder... if both NAQ and the MMI/LORs are used to evaluate traits of communication, leadership, collaboration,  etc., would not the repeated and observed measurements in the MMI/LORs be a more true appraisal of these skills as compared to self-reported (though verified) NAQ descriptions? If so, it might support how admissions would prefer to use the MMI metric favorably post-interview in evaluating such skills. Perhaps not entirely, since I would also consider NAQ qualities not necessarily evaluated in the MMI that would be relevant in the holistic review process.

In the admissions statistics released annually, provided are the average MCAT and GPA (AQ) of the admitted class to compare to unsuccessful applicants... an interesting, but likely moot point is that we are not provided the average NAQ of the admitted class. Average NAQ is provided in the interim stats for interviewees, though it is widely understood that NAQ dictates 50% of interview-invite decisions. Without data, it can't be concluded if those admitted have any difference in mean NAQ compare to post-interview unsuccessful applicants. Heck, even with the data, natural correlations between NAQ and other scores can definitely make drawing conclusions on file-review metrics super tricky. Unfortunately we can only anecdotally speculate if NAQ is a player in post-interview file review.

An FOI request for this statistic would be an interesting avenue to explore. Really difficult to say how fruitful or futile such endeavor would be...