slick90210 Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Hey guys.... So i'm curious about two things. One is about the differences in AA. So if one applicant has a 21AA and one applicant has a 22AA @UWO DAT = 15% Since AA is out of 30... 1 pt AA is 1/30. so 3.33% but it is weighed 15% in the application process so that equals 0.5 TOTAL weighed difference. Now to equate that with % 2 year average is approx 0.83%. So 0.83% x 0.6 (weighed applicant average at UWO) = 0.5... 1 AA = 0.83% (2 Year %) What that means if my calculations are correct is one AA point is equal to 0.83% increase in best two year average? Does anyone have any knowledge they can shed on this topic? Anything I may be overlooking? And my second point is regarding the high RC avg for 2009 Feb DAT. Considering UWO gave an interview to anyone with above 83% and 18RC (not sure about this year tho) which equated to nearly 275 interviews. This Feb the I believe over 300 DAT writer scored above 21/22 on RC (I dont have scoresheet with me I forget exact numbers). I dont even know how to begin understanding how this will effect next years applicant pool but it worries me. Considering Nov DAT RC was much lower, above 20 was 90th percentile? -Again i'm not 100% sure- i'm worried as to the 2010 cutoff for RC. My dilemma is I wish to write the DAT again but if the RC goes back to average and 17/18 is 50th percentile... What if cutoff rises to 19 or maybe even to 20 due to the fact so many DAT takers have 20+ from Feb 2009. Has anyone else thought about this? Any ideas? Thanks! EDIT: Could someone get a 16AA and 91.82% (best 2 year) and still get in to UWO (according to 2009 statistics?) It doesn't seem feasible in my head but it should be true considering avg interview scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rla_z Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Your method is just one of many ways they can use to calculate your stats. For example, they can take the gpa and dat of all applicants and arrange them from highest to lowest. Say 400 people applied, then the person with the highest gpa gets 400 points, next hightest gets 399, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick90210 Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 But does that method really work when we are talking about weighed scales 60/15/25? Im trying to think of a way but having a hard time. Oh, hmm maybe like... Highest GPA gets 600 points, Highest DAT gets 150 points Highest Interview gets 250 points? lol I guess but that's weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T00thFairy Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I can't remember what interview it was at (maybe UBC or McGill), but one of them was telling us that they plot them on a normal distribution. From there, say there is a span of 75-100% on GPA, then 75 would correlate to a 0 and 100 would correlate to a 30. That's just an example, as I doubt 75 actually gets a zero, but it helps when people only differ by like 3% points as we often do. In their exact words "there is a secret normal distribution formula that only we know that varies from year to year" hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusnasland Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 hmmm... are you sure that about 300 people got over 21~22 on RC? that doesn't seem right... Ya RC was apparently super easy on the February DAT. Out of 679 people, 64% scored a 20 or higher, 49% scored a 21 or higher, and 38% scored a 22 or higher. 5 people even scored perfect Compared to the Novermber DAT Out of 1075 people, 35% scored a 20 or higher, 22% a 21 or higher, and 12% a 22 or higher. Nobody scored perfect This will most likely have an impact on the upcoming admission cycle. It really makes us question the logic in their grading scheme. They create tests that differ in difficulty and then fail to appropriately curve the scores. For example, a 20 in biology on the Feb. 2008 DAT was the cumulative 80th percentile, while a 20 in biology on the Nov. 2008 DAT was the cumulative 97th percentile. With different schools looking only at specific sections, only at the raw score, and often allowing DAT scores up to 3 years old this creates a highly uneven playing field. Also if some of us choose to use this years DAT scores when applying to the states, our science scores will seem low to these schools even if they are in the 90th percentile. I think maybe the people over at CDA need to take a statistics class or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentss Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 the world is not a fair place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppy Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The stats make no sense, especially considering the fact that most people are alot more prepared in Nov then in Feb....Some fairly poor students managed to get really good DAT scores. Is the Feb DAT always easier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Ya RC was apparently super easy on the February DAT. Out of 679 people, 64% scored a 20 or higher, 49% scored a 21 or higher, and 38% scored a 22 or higher. 5 people even scored perfect Compared to the Novermber DAT Out of 1075 people, 35% scored a 20 or higher, 22% a 21 or higher, and 12% a 22 or higher. Nobody scored perfect This will most likely have an impact on the upcoming admission cycle. It really makes us question the logic in their grading scheme. They create tests that differ in difficulty and then fail to appropriately curve the scores. For example, a 20 in biology on the Feb. 2008 DAT was the cumulative 80th percentile, while a 20 in biology on the Nov. 2008 DAT was the cumulative 97th percentile. With different schools looking only at specific sections, only at the raw score, and often allowing DAT scores up to 3 years old this creates a highly uneven playing field. Also if some of us choose to use this years DAT scores when applying to the states, our science scores will seem low to these schools even if they are in the 90th percentile. I think maybe the people over at CDA need to take a statistics class or something. My sentiments exactly. I found that really annoying too. I took the Nov 2008 DAT and the curve seemed a bit messed up to me seeing as how a 19 was the 90th percentile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick90210 Posted June 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 The stats make no sense, especially considering the fact that most people are alot more prepared in Nov then in Feb....Some fairly poor students managed to get really good DAT scores. Is the Feb DAT always easier? Well to be completely honest the AA percentiles were not too far apart... so they are nearly the same but as for applying to Western, since one of the sections was shifted up, (and another shifted down to balance, i think chem?) RC is looked at individually so it was a GOOD exam to write for UWO but average for most other schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.