VR 9 good enough?

[mattg]

On this point, it would be a bit more difficult (though not impossible) to get someone else to do CASPer for you, since, if you get an interview, they test your "typing signature".

 

That's pretty cool... how accurate is it? what if you were just in a really different mood, or didn't put any care into the signature sample, or something... if the writing styles don't match up, do they really have grounds to discount your casper? or what do they plan on doing in that case?... unless it has an extremely high specificity, it sounds like it may just be a scare tactic... otherwise, any mistakes it makes would be brutal for someone

[future_doc]

I think CASPer helps to reduce the (potentially unfair) aspects of the 5 ABS questions.

 

That's one of the main points of the changeover, they want to get rid of the 'help' aspect from third parties and to see/judge the actual work of the applicant.

[tmosby]

regardless, at least everyone is on an equal playing field, and this year's applicant pool is going to save some time

 

As rmorlean mentioned, its a set of 2 or 3 questions per video - you have to answer all these in 5 minutes - so yes, its 5 minutes for three questions.

 

As for saving time, I don't think thats happening (with regard to the OMSAS application). McMaster wants both the ABS and Casper done this year. So in addition to Casper, everyone's going to have to spend a bit of time on those five questions. If nothing goes wrong, they won't use it, but if Casper fails, then they still need an alternative way of selecting applicants aside from GPA and MCAT

[thatonekid]

That's pretty cool... how accurate is it? what if you were just in a really different mood, or didn't put any care into the signature sample, or something... if the writing styles don't match up, do they really have grounds to discount your casper? or what do they plan on doing in that case?... unless it has an extremely high specificity, it sounds like it may just be a scare tactic... otherwise, any mistakes it makes would be brutal for someone

I'm not sure. But, I would think that typing is like writing. No matter how rushed/tired I am, I can still tell whether I wrote something or if it's not my writing/sentence structure. So there can be some selective specificity. But I'm not about to argue the scare tactic idea. A lot of stuff adcoms say is just talk (that I've noticed).

[Prion]

Has the typing signature been successfully applied in other fields to eliminate "copycats"? I did a haste search on google but didn't get anything right off the bat.

 

 

I'm not sure. But, I would think that typing is like writing. No matter how rushed/tired I am, I can still tell whether I wrote something or if it's not my writing/sentence structure. So there can be some selective specificity. But I'm not about to argue the scare tactic idea. A lot of stuff adcoms say is just talk (that I've noticed).

 

It's one thing to be able to identify your own typed response, it's another concept to be able to tell with some confidence level that a typed paragraph is NOT done by you. Especially since it has to be done on a mass scale using an automatic algorithm.

 

The closest thing I've known personally are codes used by comp sci courses to check plagiarism in assignments/homeworks. Even that was quite glitchy and I've known friends who copied somebody else's code and not get caught while some who were totally innocent got zero on their assignment for suspected plagiarism (one person did petition and had his mark restored.)

[thatonekid]

It's one thing to be able to identify your own typed response, it's another concept to be able to tell with some confidence level that a typed paragraph is NOT done by you. Especially since it has to be done on a mass scale using an automatic algorithm.

 

The closest thing I've known personally are codes used by comp sci courses to check plagiarism in assignments/homeworks. Even that was quite glitchy and I've known friends who copied somebody else's code and not get caught while some who were totally innocent got zero on their assignment for suspected plagiarism (this person did petition and had his mark restored.)

Yeah, I don't think I explained myself right. What I'm trying to say (in general) is that they can check if your CASPer answers look like your typing signature, but I don't think that it's too specific. It's more to discourage "cheating" rather than to actually match your answers up to your writing style.

[medtech]

Yeah, I don't think I explained myself right. What I'm trying to say (in general) is that they can check if your CASPer answers look like your typing signature, but I don't think that it's too specific. It's more to discourage "cheating" rather than to actually match your answers up to your writing style.

 

This is about medical school applications so it's never about if I'm going to get caught, the med schools bank on what if you get caught:

 

Think about it, even if the chances of you getting caught isn't that high, if you get caught, your barred from applying to mac medical school for 7 years. I'm pretty sure mac will let other schools in ontario or canada to look out for your applications so your chances to get into the career is basically gone. People don't just decide to go into medicine on a whim, so this equates to a lot of financial and personal investment, all the money you paid for applying through OMSAS, the tuitions you've paid, the money spent on MCATs, and years of getting good marks at school is basically ineffective if not wasted...

 

It's like wearing a seatbelt, usually when you don't wear one everything works out, but people always wear them cause you can die if you dont:cool:

 

EDIT: I just thought of something ironic, with the highly competitive nature of med apps, the chances of you getting caught it probably the same as you getting into med school. So if you think you can get into med school, than you can probably get caught if you were involved in fraudulent acitivty

[Prion]

 

EDIT: I just thought of something ironic, with the highly competitive nature of med apps, the chances of you getting caught it probably the same as you getting into med school. So if you think you can get into med school, than you can probably get caught if you were involved in fraudulent acitivty

 

I'm not sure I follow that logic. I sincerely hope the chance of someone getting caught is not as low as 150/3000+ (assuming this is the average chance of matriculation for everybody). If that was the case, assuming the two events are independant, it would become highly unlikely for someone to get into med school AND get caught cheating. I think most of us are worried about applicants who DO get in by cheating the system.

 

On a second thought tho, this MIGHT not be an issue for MAC itself. I realize now why Mac only considers Casper pre-interview. If someone cheats, he or she will still likely be outed in the MMI, as any benefit gained from cheating will be wiped out by the interview stage. If he/she gets in after that, the person is probably qualified to get in in the first place, since the MMI is essentially the same as Casper(I hope). So really, there shouldn't be a big incentive for somebody to cheat Casper. No harm is done to the school in terms of the quality of students admitted even if somebody did cheat. A few lucky ones might slip by, sure, but all systems are imperfect in such way and we must live with that.

 

However, it might raise a justice issue for applicants who fell by the interview cutoff just by a few points, due to someone else unfairly taking the interview spot. *shrug*This is the only aspect that worries me (besides the glitches that they might encounter ). Other than that, I think this is actually a quite good change to the admission process. Many benefits were mentioned in this thread and I agree.

[itimebomb2]

I'm not sure I follow that logic. I sincerely hope the chance of someone getting caught is not as low as 150/3000+ (assuming this is the average chance of matriculation for everybody). If that was the case, assuming the two events are independant, it would become highly unlikely for someone to get into med school AND get caught cheating. I think most of us are worried about applicants who DO get in by cheating the system.

 

On a second thought tho, this MIGHT not be an issue for MAC itself. I realize now why Mac only considers Casper pre-interview. If someone cheats, he or she will still likely be outed in the MMI, as any benefit gained from cheating will be wiped out by the interview stage. If he/she gets in after that, the person is probably qualified to get in in the first place, since the MMI is essentially the same as Casper(I hope). So really, there shouldn't be a big incentive for somebody to cheat Casper. No harm is done to the school in terms of the quality of students admitted even if somebody did cheat. A few lucky ones might slip by, sure, but all systems are imperfect in such way and we must live with that.

 

However, it might raise a justice issue for applicants who fell by the interview cutoff just by a few points, due to someone else unfairly taking the interview spot. *shrug*This is the only aspect that worries me (besides the glitches that they might encounter ). Other than that, I think this is actually a quite good change to the admission process. Many benefits were mentioned in this thread and I agree.

 

Prion, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the objectivity of these rating methods. The ABS, Casper and interviews have one thing in common - they are extremely subjective. I'm making stuff up now, but I'd be surprised if the inter-rater reliability of any of these has a R^2 value of more than 0.5 (stats buffs, please don't rip me apart).

 

The point is, it's a step in the right direction, but its still a very, very imperfect system.

 

Don't help people cheat.

[Prion]

Prion, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the objectivity of these rating methods. The ABS, Casper and interviews have one thing in common - they are extremely subjective. I'm making stuff up now, but I'd be surprised if the inter-rater reliability of any of these has a R^2 value of more than 0.5 (stats buffs, please don't rip me apart).

 

The point is, it's a step in the right direction, but its still a very, very imperfect system.

 

Don't help people cheat.

Sorry if I come off that way. If anything, I'm trying to do the opposite by saying that there isn't any incentive for people to cheat. It's just my late night brain storming while taking a breather from work:p Yes, I did make a lot of assumptions to present my case. I don't know how much Casper correlates with the MMI. Mac probably does, but given its format and structure, I'd guess that's the intended purpose of it anyways (high correlation).

 

All systems we have are pretty subjective. But MMI was supposed to be a step towards more objectivity, right?

Do you agree with me that this system is no more imperfect than any other current existing system or are you saying it makes things slightly worse even though there were some positive aspects of the change?

[Femto]

Prion, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the objectivity of these rating methods. The ABS, Casper and interviews have one thing in common - they are extremely subjective. I'm making stuff up now, but I'd be surprised if the inter-rater reliability of any of these has a R^2 value of more than 0.5 (stats buffs, please don't rip me apart).

 

The point is, it's a step in the right direction, but its still a very, very imperfect system.

 

Don't help people cheat.

 

Yes, but CASPer and the MMI are far less subjective than the ABS, as proven in their studies. The inter-rater reliability is actually what makes CASPer a far better assessment than the evaluation of the ABS. That is the main reason for its implementation if I am not misunderstood.

[rmorelan]

Yes, but CASPer and the MMI are far less subjective than the ABS, as proven in their studies. The inter-rater reliability is actually what makes CASPer a far better assessment than the evaluation of the ABS. That is the main reason for its implementation if I am not misunderstood.

 

True, Mac has spent years trying to develop something they can prove to reliable and feel they have the proof to back it up now. They certainly don't think the test is all that subjective