Writing Sample Discrepancies

[danceprincess88]

I wrote the MCAT in August of 2006 which, as you know, was the last MCAT to be administered with paper and pencil. I was able to achieve a 36(12B 14P 10V)Q on the exam. My writing sample score of Q was equivalent to a percentile score of 70.2-88.3. So, about 12% of people who wrote that MCAT got an R or above. A Q for all of the CBT 2007 exams combined was equivalent to a percentile score of 64.4-83.2. So, about 17% of people got an R or above. Looking back again at the pen and pencil administrations for April 2006, August 2005 and April 2005, 10,10 and 11% of writers got an R or above.

 

One would expect this since the essays are marked according to a criteria, they are not normalized like the other 3 sections. I, along with most people can write an essay better with a computer where it is faster to type and edit then with a paper and pencil. I find it rather stupid that this clear statistical difference was not taken into account for which version of the exam you wrote.

 

Queens doesn't think I can write very good (that is a joke, I actually mean "well"). While I think that Queens doesn't understand basic statistics.

[danceprincess88]

For those who are wondering, all of the statistics for the MCATs are available here:

 

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/pubs.htm

[ineffable]

I completely agree with you. I wrote the MCAT during exactly the same year and achieved exactly the same overall score, only to be rejected by Queen's after being interviewed by them last year.

[Jochi1543]

Well, if more people this year got an R than the year before, then you just explained why Queen's could've chosen to raise the WS cutoff to an R, no?

[danceprincess88]

Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. More people got an R writing the CBT than with the paper and pencil. If they raised the cutoff to the R it rewards the people who took the CBT and not the paper and pencil. I think this defeats the purpose of a standardized test such as the MCAT. Nonetheless my personal opinion as to why Queens did it is to bring in a different applicant pool that might not have gotten an interview at U of T or UWO. Queens has had trouble with people turning down offers of admission in the past and going deep into their waitlist. Now someone who gets a 28S or 31R who might not get an interview anywhere else has no choice but to accept an offer of admission at Queens if it is presented.

[Jochi1543]

Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. More people got an R writing the CBT than with the paper and pencil. If they raised the cutoff to the R it rewards the people who took the CBT and not the paper and pencil.

 

I wasn't necessarily thinking about paper/pencil vs. CBT, I was thinking more along the lines of managing the applicant pool with the cutoffs. If, say, in 2006, Q was at 70% and R was at 80%, and in 2007, Q was at 60% and R at 70%, then having a cutoff of R in 2007 would have produced the same effect as having a cutoff of Q in 2006. Know what I mean?

[mcpherv]

I wasn't necessarily thinking about paper/pencil vs. CBT, I was thinking more along the lines of managing the applicant pool with the cutoffs. If, say, in 2006, Q was at 70% and R was at 80%, and in 2007, Q was at 60% and R at 70%, then having a cutoff of R in 2007 would have produced the same effect as having a cutoff of Q in 2006. Know what I mean?

 

Sure, but you still have individuals who are applying having written the MCAT during the period of time when the WS was marked more stringently (such as myself - I wrote it in Aug, 2005). These individuals are now at a disadvantage by virtue of the discrepancy.

[Jochi1543]

Sure, but you still have individuals who are applying having written the MCAT during the period of time when the WS was marked more stringently (such as myself - I wrote it in Aug, 2005). These individuals are now at a disadvantage by virtue of the discrepancy.

 

Yeah, but after all, Queen's has everyone's scores and determines their cutoffs using that, and not the statistics from the MCAT site. So it was this year's applicant pool and not the 2007 MCAT data.

[danceprincess88]

Those statistics are freely available online. Also the AAMC does provide the medical schools with extensively more statistics then are available online and medical schools compile their own correlations between marks on the MCAT and success on the CMCC exams. And for the record, there is no correlation between success on the CMCC exam and the writing sample. There is a correlation between the other 3 sections though with verbal being the highest.

[shawnkarls]

Fact is, WS shouldnt count for anything anyways, let alone requiring an R...

the fact that someone with a 29R can get an interview over someone with a 45Q is sickening (i got 34Q and im pissed, i can imagine other people with even better scores are even more angered)...i guess queens is looking to start the worlds first combined journalism/MD degree

[ineffable]

i guess queens is looking to start the worlds first combined journalism/MD degree

I'd actually be interested in that! On a more serious note, I guess we will only be able to tell how effective they consider their MCAT cut-offs were at this time next year, if they choose to revise them.

[Alastriss]

IF you are going to get mad at the R for Queens, you might as well get mad at other med schools and how they select for candidates (Mac and their no prerequisite rule - I can think of so many students with the same ECs cept 1 student took hard sciences and medically related courses such as histology and advanced histology and had a lower gpa while another took introductory music where you clap your hands for a test and got a higher gpa. Guess who got the interview?) <-- you SHOULD be thinking: well not all candidates that get Mac interviews actually take easy courses

 

Just the same way as not every person who got Queen's interview even with that R snuck right by with a less than balanced or less than 30 mcat.

 

Maybe the applicant pool was anomalous? maybe thats why they took a while to put out some sort of cutoff? maybe it just happened that they had an applicant pool with a higher than average WS? If they had too many competitive applicants period, wouldnt it make sense to distribute the increase in cutoffs accordingly? There are so many ways to do it - mcat is hard because u can go up by 1 minimum and that may be a coarse adjustment in terms of numbers when selecting people for interviews. GPA allows for more finetuning, just go up by 0.01. Im just saying that if they wanted to weed a whole bunch of people out, they could have done it any other way. The mere idea that the WS cutoff went up significanly should make us SUSPECT that something may have been up with the applicant pool itself.

 

secondly we don't KNOW whether its 9/9/9 R or not. The lowest cumulative on this forum to receive an interview that i know of was 28, so who's tosay thats the cumulative? or who's to say that VR didnt have more of a weighting?

 

 

Just something to think about before venting at the expense of queen's

[avenir001]

Those statistics are freely available online. Also the AAMC does provide the medical schools with extensively more statistics then are available online and medical schools compile their own correlations between marks on the MCAT and success on the CMCC exams. And for the record, there is no correlation between success on the CMCC exam and the writing sample. There is a correlation between the other 3 sections though with verbal being the highest.

 

do you or anyone know the actual magnitudes? just curious

[Jochi1543]

do you or anyone know the actual magnitudes? just curious

 

I think it's on the AAMC website.

[avenir001]

I think it's on the AAMC website.

 

r u implying that i'm too lazy to do my own research??? wow u've got some nerve accusing me of such a thing

[superchargedman]

I think you have some valid points here, but there is something to be said about the medical education research. Of all of the MCAT components, the WS is the poorest predictor of future performance. If anything, they should have increased their VR cut-off, since that is the best predictor of clinical communication skills. But, each individual is entitled to his/her opinion. I just think it makes more sense to assess people based upon strong future indicators, rather than basing the cut-offs solely on the "anomalous" average score of the applicant pool.

 

IF you are going to get mad at the R for Queens, you might as well get mad at other med schools and how they select for candidates (Mac and their no prerequisite rule - I can think of so many students with the same ECs cept 1 student took hard sciences and medically related courses such as histology and advanced histology and had a lower gpa while another took introductory music where you clap your hands for a test and got a higher gpa. Guess who got the interview?) <-- you SHOULD be thinking: well not all candidates that get Mac interviews actually take easy courses

 

Just the same way as not every person who got Queen's interview even with that R snuck right by with a less than balanced or less than 30 mcat.

 

Maybe the applicant pool was anomalous? maybe thats why they took a while to put out some sort of cutoff? maybe it just happened that they had an applicant pool with a higher than average WS? If they had too many competitive applicants period, wouldnt it make sense to distribute the increase in cutoffs accordingly? There are so many ways to do it - mcat is hard because u can go up by 1 minimum and that may be a coarse adjustment in terms of numbers when selecting people for interviews. GPA allows for more finetuning, just go up by 0.01. Im just saying that if they wanted to weed a whole bunch of people out, they could have done it any other way. The mere idea that the WS cutoff went up significanly should make us SUSPECT that something may have been up with the applicant pool itself.

 

secondly we don't KNOW whether its 9/9/9 R or not. The lowest cumulative on this forum to receive an interview that i know of was 28, so who's tosay thats the cumulative? or who's to say that VR didnt have more of a weighting?

 

 

Just something to think about before venting at the expense of queen's

________

UPLANDER

[Alastriss]

I think you have some valid points here, but there is something to be said about the medical education research. Of all of the MCAT components, the WS is the poorest predictor of future performance. If anything, they should have increased their VR cut-off, since that is the best predictor of clinical communication skills. But, each individual is entitled to his/her opinion. I just think it makes more sense to assess people based upon strong future indicators, rather than basing the cut-offs solely on the "anomalous" average score of the applicant pool.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with you. yes it may have been anomalous, and no it definetely wasn't the best, but that's not to say that a large deal of applicants who were worthy of an interview didn't get it. It could however, be argued that Queen's probably has more applicants who got rejected but were worthy of an interview when compared with another medical school. I just posted that earler because what was being said can be demeaning to those who got it but feel like they don't

[The Law]

secondly we don't KNOW whether its 9/9/9 R or not. The lowest cumulative on this forum to receive an interview that i know of was 28, so who's tosay thats the cumulative? or who's to say that VR didnt have more of a weighting?

 

 

Just something to think about before venting at the expense of queen's

 

Being the aforementioned person, I thought I should weigh in! I think it's time people stopped whining and get on with their lives. Geez - no matter what the schools do, someone is going to be angry that the process is not fair. The process at each school will not be fair to everyone, it's not possible.

 

First off, they haven't published any cutoffs - so this is all guesswork on our part. Maybe we are right, but we could be wrong about the 9/9/9 R cutoff.

 

Second, of course the AAMC is going to publish data showing a correlation of the test with success in med school lol. They're the ones administering it!

 

Now, a 9/9/9 R cutoff worked out well for those who did really well but ended up with a 9 in one section. Maybe Queen's was sick of losing those people? Queen's is not using the MCAT as the BE ALL and END ALL for deciding if someone is academically fit for medical school. If they were, then those who mentioned the correlation between success in med school and the MCAT may have a case saying that Queen's should pick people with higher MCAT scores. Instead, Queen's uses both a GPA and an MCAT cutoff. They set their standards to a point where they feel that people are going to be able to sufficiently handle the workload AND to cutdown the applicant pool.

 

It is obvious that Queen's is a holistic school. They look for a good balance between academics and non-academics (as the latter is given all the weighting for an acceptance). Queen's obviously felt that they were going to still have qualified people with their current cutoffs, and in the end - it's their decision for who they decide they want to interview. I sympathize with those who didn't get an interview - I personally feel it's an honour that I got one, and I know that I'm not in any way better than you, but there is no way that the process is going to be fair to everyone.

 

It never will be fair, but LIFE IS NOT FAIR. You lost out on Queen's - well hopefully you have luck at another school, it's the nature of life. You could always dwell on how unfair things are, or you could move on - and just do your best, and in the end, hopefully life will work out for you.

[lostintime]

Good post Law, I agree.

 

I *****ed and whined on the Mac forum as well =P but I think in the end, everyone complains for whichever way does NOT benefit them. Not to say people's claims here and some of my arguments (plus others') were not legit in the Mac forum. It's unfortunately just the way the cookie crumbles. When you're on the other side i.e . got the interview invite, you feel less inclined to generate all this anger at the school.

 

If I did not get R, I would be probably mad as hell posting here. And if I had gotten an invite at Mac, I probably wouldn't have posted so much about their ambiguity in marking the 5 questions. Am I hypocrite? I suppose..but aren't we all =P

[superchargedman]

Well, I don't wish to dwell on the topic any further beyond this, but I do just want to say that my argument is not about being "fair." Obviously, there are always people who will whine and people who will champion. I am simply asserting that the admissions process should be grounded in evidence (and I'm not referring to the AAMC research; I'm talking about the med ed lit that I've been immersed in during my master's), rather than using an indicator (WS) that is not a good reflection of...well, anything.

 

Being the aforementioned person, I thought I should weigh in! I think it's time people stopped whining and get on with their lives. Geez - no matter what the schools do, someone is going to be angry that the process is not fair. The process at each school will not be fair to everyone, it's not possible.

 

First off, they haven't published any cutoffs - so this is all guesswork on our part. Maybe we are right, but we could be wrong about the 9/9/9 R cutoff.

 

Second, of course the AAMC is going to publish data showing a correlation of the test with success in med school lol. They're the ones administering it!

 

Now, a 9/9/9 R cutoff worked out well for those who did really well but ended up with a 9 in one section. Maybe Queen's was sick of losing those people? Queen's is not using the MCAT as the BE ALL and END ALL for deciding if someone is academically fit for medical school. If they were, then those who mentioned the correlation between success in med school and the MCAT may have a case saying that Queen's should pick people with higher MCAT scores. Instead, Queen's uses both a GPA and an MCAT cutoff. They set their standards to a point where they feel that people are going to be able to sufficiently handle the workload AND to cutdown the applicant pool.

 

It is obvious that Queen's is a holistic school. They look for a good balance between academics and non-academics (as the latter is given all the weighting for an acceptance). Queen's obviously felt that they were going to still have qualified people with their current cutoffs, and in the end - it's their decision for who they decide they want to interview. I sympathize with those who didn't get an interview - I personally feel it's an honour that I got one, and I know that I'm not in any way better than you, but there is no way that the process is going to be fair to everyone.

 

It never will be fair, but LIFE IS NOT FAIR. You lost out on Queen's - well hopefully you have luck at another school, it's the nature of life. You could always dwell on how unfair things are, or you could move on - and just do your best, and in the end, hopefully life will work out for you.

________

List of ford factories history

[lostintime]

Hmm interesting. Is that why US schools don't care about it? But if it's so useless, why is it still part of the MCAT?

[Chowchilla]

Being the aforementioned person, I thought I should weigh in! I think it's time people stopped whining and get on with their lives. Geez - no matter what the schools do, someone is going to be angry that the process is not fair. The process at each school will not be fair to everyone, it's not possible.

 

First off, they haven't published any cutoffs - so this is all guesswork on our part. Maybe we are right, but we could be wrong about the 9/9/9 R cutoff.

 

Second, of course the AAMC is going to publish data showing a correlation of the test with success in med school lol. They're the ones administering it!

 

Now, a 9/9/9 R cutoff worked out well for those who did really well but ended up with a 9 in one section. Maybe Queen's was sick of losing those people? Queen's is not using the MCAT as the BE ALL and END ALL for deciding if someone is academically fit for medical school. If they were, then those who mentioned the correlation between success in med school and the MCAT may have a case saying that Queen's should pick people with higher MCAT scores. Instead, Queen's uses both a GPA and an MCAT cutoff. They set their standards to a point where they feel that people are going to be able to sufficiently handle the workload AND to cutdown the applicant pool.

 

It is obvious that Queen's is a holistic school. They look for a good balance between academics and non-academics (as the latter is given all the weighting for an acceptance). Queen's obviously felt that they were going to still have qualified people with their current cutoffs, and in the end - it's their decision for who they decide they want to interview. I sympathize with those who didn't get an interview - I personally feel it's an honour that I got one, and I know that I'm not in any way better than you, but there is no way that the process is going to be fair to everyone.

 

It never will be fair, but LIFE IS NOT FAIR. You lost out on Queen's - well hopefully you have luck at another school, it's the nature of life. You could always dwell on how unfair things are, or you could move on - and just do your best, and in the end, hopefully life will work out for you.

 

word. also, queen's might have additional criteria this year that we have no clue about.

[Alastriss]

Hmm interesting. Is that why US schools don't care about it? But if it's so useless, why is it still part of the MCAT?

 

imo its more than just whether or not you are well spoken. Its about effective communication, being able to take a prompt, think on the spot, and use the type of memory that allows you to recall appropriate events (not prompted recall like m/c questions) to formulate a cohesive essay in 30 minutes.

 

I think that queen's should at least receive credit for not including the mcat and gpa after the cutoffs are made. That is surely to make all those people with the "no diff between a 3.8 and 3.9 on physician quality" people happy