The Ace of Spades Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 what does it mean that the removal of 30 credits will only apply for some applicants? Does your year have to be below a certain level to count..or will they just take your best three years provided you have at least 120 credits? Sounds like it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Sounds like it's the latter. They take your worst year up to 30 credits provided that after the removal of said credits you have at least 90 credits. Ie. Your worst year was 28 credits and you have 120 credits total. 120-28= 92... they will remove your credits. Your worst year was 20 credits and you have 110 total credits... Leaves you with 90 credits... They will remove the year. Your worst year is 27 credits... You have 90 credits total, they will not remove your worst year because it drops you below the 90 credit mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryacha Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I wouldn't count on the MCAT carrying much weight on the interview selection. They may just be moving it to the pre-interview stage because too many people were flagged when it was left to after interview. The system seems to be highly geared towards selecting a certain type of applicant and my general feeling is a high MCAT isn't a big part of that applicants desired skill set. I would be surprised of the MCAT started playing a role even close to cGPA/pre-reqs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayan Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I wouldn't count on the MCAT carrying much weight on the interview selection. I can't defend the veracity of this statement, but I've heard that UBC primarily uses the sciences section of the MCAT as a second marker of your strength in sciences. For instance, a bad mark in Organic chemistry could be compensated for with a strong mark in the bio/orgo section of the MCAT, potentially. With this in mind, including prerequisite marks in the pre-interview evaluation would necessitate shifting the MCAT as well. If this is true, for those out there with low prereq marks your chances are not eliminated They may just be moving it to the pre-interview stage because too many people were flagged when it was left to after interview. It was already moved to the pre-interview phase this cycle as a cutoff. This change was likely responsible for the drastic increase in the number of disqualified applicants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryacha Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I can't defend the veracity of this statement Sorry good call, that was pure speculation just based on the previous tendency of UBC to not rate MCAT as a big part of their decisions process. Then again, they didn't used to use the pre-reqs that heavily either and now its in the pre-interview so who knows? It was already moved to the pre-interview phase this cycle as a cutoff. This change was likely responsible for the drastic increase in the number of disqualified applicants. I stand corrected I thought it was still a post interview flag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthy1 Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Wow, so much has changed...up until now I was still worrying about what to do...I REALLY hope they lower their standards for the AQ calculations, average is about 80% for all categories of calculations...and they gave me 9/25 this year T_T That being said...I'm actually disappointed that they drop last 60 but it helps me simply because my (pre-reqs) first year was my best year...so I can't complain, but I know what everybody is going through (don't hate me please...I sympathize with those whose marks are detrimentally affected). My question now is that if the AQ is under review, what does that do in terms of NAQ..? EDIT: I know this is the 10 year rule thread, but does this apply to all applicants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darknebula Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 All these changes... so depressing. UBC seems really confused about what they want in applicants. Hope it wont be way harder to get in next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 They take your worst year up to 30 credits provided that after the removal of said credits you have at least 90 credits. Ie. Your worst year was 28 credits and you have 120 credits total. 120-28= 92... they will remove your credits. Your worst year was 20 credits and you have 110 total credits... Leaves you with 90 credits... They will remove the year. Your worst year is 27 credits... You have 90 credits total, they will not remove your worst year because it drops you below the 90 credit mark. I'm really sorry if I sound stupid guys - I only checked this thread now and I'm not applying to UBC, but shouldn't this new system help a lot of applicants? Seems similar to U of T dropping the lowest 6 courses or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I'm really sorry if I sound stupid guys - I only checked this thread now and I'm not applying to UBC, but shouldn't this new system help a lot of applicants? Seems similar to U of T dropping the lowest 6 courses or something like that... It will help almost everybody a little bit... But, because all of the credits must come from one year you could be limited in how much it could help. What if you have to mediocre years, as a result of two bad courses... It will only help with one year so you may not get a big boost. What if you have four years at about 78-82... It's not going to help too much if you're consistent. What if your worst year contains some of your best marks- Ie. 2 C/D's and 3 A/A+'s. It's nice to see a rule that could have potentially helped everybody, but it's still a pretty weak rule IMO. I'm a fan of the u of m approach as it gives you a bit more freedom. At least that's my take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryacha Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 It will help almost everybody a little bit...But, because all of the credits must come from one year you could be limited in how much it could help. What if you have to mediocre years, as a result of two bad courses... It will only help with one year so you may not get a big boost. What if you have four years at about 78-82... It's not going to help too much if you're consistent. What if your worst year contains some of your best marks- Ie. 2 C/D's and 3 A/A+'s. It's nice to see a rule that could have potentially helped everybody, but it's still a pretty weak rule IMO. I'm a fan of the u of m approach as it gives you a bit more freedom. At least that's my take on it. I think the U of M is a great way to do it too, but what might happen is that it boosts everyone equally making it overall pretty useless in differentiating students. Everyone probably has 30 credits of bad marks, and if they don't they would already have a great AQ anyways. Since this rule is meant to replace the 10 year rule it might have been created to account for people who have a bad year due to outside forces (family problems etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 It will help almost everybody a little bit...But, because all of the credits must come from one year you could be limited in how much it could help. What if you have to mediocre years, as a result of two bad courses... It will only help with one year so you may not get a big boost. What if you have four years at about 78-82... It's not going to help too much if you're consistent. What if your worst year contains some of your best marks- Ie. 2 C/D's and 3 A/A+'s. It's nice to see a rule that could have potentially helped everybody, but it's still a pretty weak rule IMO. I'm a fan of the u of m approach as it gives you a bit more freedom. At least that's my take on it. hking, what about taking the prereq into consideration pre-interview? Won't that be counter-intuitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 hking, what about taking the prereq into consideration pre-interview? Won't that be counter-intuitive? Hmm... I dunno, it would depend upon what you consider as counter intuitive... If a school considers pre-requisite courses in the application cycle I'm not opposed to it being pre or post interview provided they are evaluated the same way. Ie. If they were flags post interview they should be flags pre interview as well. It would suck to not get an interview because of a couple of pre-requisites, but as long as they are worth the same I don't think it's that bad. Having said that, I haven't actually crunched numbers or evaluated the impact of switching them to pre-interview, this is just my initial thought on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Hmm... I dunno, it would depend upon what you consider as counter intuitive... If a school considers pre-requisite courses in the application cycle I'm not opposed to it being pre or post interview provided they are evaluated the same way. Ie. If they were flags post interview they should be flags pre interview as well. It would suck to not get an interview because of a couple of pre-requisites, but as long as they are worth the same I don't think it's that bad. Having said that, I haven't actually crunched numbers or evaluated the impact of switching them to pre-interview, this is just my initial thought on the issue. Scratch the counter intuitive part. It makes sense to use prereq average as a flag. But do you think they will use it in the AQ calculation as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Scratch the counter intuitive part. It makes sense to use prereq average as a flag. But do you think they will use it in the AQ calculation as well? The signs certainly point to pre-reqs being a part of the academic portion of the pre-interview cutoffs... With the removal of the last 60 credits calculation it seems likely that they will either use your gpa/cgpa or cgpa/gpa + pre-reqs. However, if the latter were the case then the pre-reqs would have a different value under the new scheme... It's tough to say what the school will do, but it would make things a lot easier to use just our gpa/cgpa as the AQ with pre-reqs and MCAT as flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaname Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 arg. My prereqs are probably my worst marks. For a split second I thought "hey, I can just do it again and they can average my second attempt" but then I realised that they take your first successful attempt and I didn't fail any. I hope they don't put TOO much weight on pre-req average. Or better yet, I hope a low prereq (in light of the new 30 credit exclusion) doesn't count as a red flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 how would they deal with ppl who are taking their pre reqs in the current year though? So, interview invite is like Decemberish, but what if someone is taking their pre reqs in the second term?? For that reason only, I think it would be harder to take pre reqs into account pre interview (since the adcom wouldn't have the complete picture) so they may just leave it till the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 how would they deal with ppl who are taking their pre reqs in the current year though? So, interview invite is like Decemberish, but what if someone is taking their pre reqs in the second term??For that reason only, I think it would be harder to take pre reqs into account pre interview (since the adcom wouldn't have the complete picture) so they may just leave it till the end. I was thinking the same thing this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankMasterFlex Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I was thinking the same thing this morning. I really think taking the prereq average into account pre-interview causes a lot of problems and doesn't seem to be in line with what they are trying to accomplish here. I think they mention it pre-interview as they will check them pre-interview (as they do now) but not actually factor them into a score. I remember reading in the senate minutes last year that somebody voiced a concern that students aiming for medicine are taking easier GPA booster courses, and that the prereq average should be given the most weight, but the UBC admissions representative didn't seem to agree. I wouldn't be surprised if they do what they did with the MCAT and set a minimum though (i.e. at least 60% in each course or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I really think taking the prereq average into account pre-interview causes a lot of problems and doesn't seem to be in line with what they are trying to accomplish here. I think they mention it pre-interview as they will check them pre-interview (as they do now) but not actually factor them into a score. I remember reading in the senate minutes last year that somebody voiced a concern that students aiming for medicine are taking easier GPA booster courses, and that the prereq average should be given the most weight, but the UBC admissions representative didn't seem to agree. I wouldn't be surprised if they do what they did with the MCAT and set a minimum though (i.e. at least 60% in each course or something). Lol, yes I can definitely see a UBC rep disagreeing with giving the prereq average the most weight. That would be ridiculous. Maybe, though, they have been getting applicants with very low prereq averages and they aren't able to keep up with the science component at UBC. That's just speculation. I know my prereq average is something like 78%, I've never gotten even close to getting 60% in one my prereqs, but I think it would be very odd for them to factor prereq GPA into AQ calculation. And I still don't understand why the took out the last 60 credit hours component. I thought med schools liked seeing an upward trend? I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish here. Seems like I am applying to UBC during their guinea pig phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepontrying Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Well the last 60 credit component is basically inviting applicants to take gpa boosters. As for the prereq average, unless they can find scientific correlation between prereq performance and medical school performance, it doesn't make sense to give it the most weight. IMO, it's probably better if they look at the last 60 credit of upper level courses instead, similar to graduate school admission? While bird courses can still be found at upper level, they are rare so it wouldn't play much of a factor to the last 60 credit average anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwh333 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 all schools with last two years or best two years, last three years are inviting students to do that. i think they should set a higher mcat minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressed Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 It's hard to even figure out what a "bird course" is IMO. Unless like they look at class averages and from personal experience that doesn't match up either. I'm taking some upper level courses that are geared towards Master's students and since the class is so small and everyone is a keener the average is high. I'm getting increasingly worried about this every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Lol and these opposing ideas about what to do about AQ is exactly why UBC can't make up it's mind and stick with a formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressed Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 - Anything is psych or sociology, not counting the stats courses, especially if there is no group work involved. - Courses intended for non-majors, for which majors can't get credit for, especially if the course level is higher than first year. (Like a philosophy course entitled "Phil 385: Critical thinking" or something like that, that's too easy for philosophy majors, so they can't get credit for it.) - Courses labelled things like "Media and Society". - Upper level courses that have no prerequisites. They basically have the same content as first year courses. In the course description, look for notes like "Sociology 355 and Sociology 101 cannot both be taken for credit". This tells you that Sociology 355 is just like 101, but might have some small twist on the theme to make it seem like an upper level course. Ok. I haven't taken these courses so I wouldn't know. Though my cousin is completing a master's degree in psychology so I do take a little offense on her behalf lol . But they have writen on their website that they don't care what your background is, so how could they possibly differentiate between courses as being easy/not easy? I know they observe trends but do they have the time and resources to determine if applicants have taken bird courses? I can imagine it might be easier for UBC students but what about out of province students or students who have attended other universities? I hate this. I stress out about this everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarathonRunner Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 - Anything is psych or sociology, not counting the stats courses, especially if there is no group work involved. I think it really depends on the individual though. I "only" got 86 in first year sociology during my undergrad days, and 88 in the "social science-based" intro psych, yet 93 in the science-based intro psych. On the other hand, I managed to pull off 91 in differential equations, a course that killed a bunch of my classmates, and between 93 and 100 (yes, I received a 100 in one of my courses) in all my other math (including calculus, algebra and stats) and science courses, as well as in traditionally "difficult" courses like organic chemistry and biochemistry. So, if you looked at those mark distributions for me, you would say that math and science were "bird" courses and sociology and psychology were difficult courses. In other words, it depends on the individual and where their strengths and weaknesses lie. I've always done very well in courses that are analytic in nature and have right or wrong answers (math, physics, etc.) I've been weaker in courses with a lot of subjectivity - even when I backed up my opinions with facts, I never did as well as in my "logical" courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.