CASPer fail

[iicii]

I believe the overall purpose is to save time. Since this year was the pilot year, we did both just in case some technical catastrophe took place.

 

Ok I haven't applied to McMaster so I don't know the experience, but reading on their website, they are trying to flaunt their CASPer as much as possible. Specificaly emphasizing the fact that its easier for the Applicant since it is less time consuming than an autobiographical sketch. (Sounds great). But then, as a back up plan, you must not only complete CASPer but do the Autobiographical sketch, just in case...how the hell does that save time if you have to do more work than before :S

[thatonekid]

I believe the overall purpose is to save time. Since this year was the pilot year, we did both just in case some technical catastrophe took place.

This. I believe that I read/heard somewhere that they'll do away with the ABS altogether, but this year they had us do both just incase CASPer was a massive failure.

[Der Kaiser]

I've been under the impression that a student, a faculty member, and a community member would read and mark it. Not sure which year. I would think if only first years were marking these there might be a certain bias. Having three different groups involved would reduce this bias. This is just a guess though.

[thatonekid]

I heard from someone that they are getting first year students to mark Casper? Is it true? Can anyone verify?

Hmm. I heard that it's marked by multiple people, like a med student and a faculty member, and then the marks they give are used to generate an average mark. But I heard this info as a rumour, not a confirmed fact or from someone associated with Mac.

[champ]

Exactly! I can't imagine the amount of variability that would occur if they were to get first year med students to mark it! I would have a hard time believing that they would actually read the answers in detail. If there's around 4000 applicants and 100 students volunteering (I can't imagine them forcing all student's to participate!) to mark it, it'll be something around 360 questions per marker (if they are sticking to marking 9/12)!!!

I really hope they have a better way of handling things...haven't they spent so many years researching the predictability of this thing?!

 

from what ive heard from a reliable source each individual was assigned the same question which was marked on a scale...it was completed before jan. I also heard it was med students, doctors and others...doing the marking

[hastin11]

from what ive heard from a reliable source each individual was assigned the same question which was marked on a scale...it was completed before jan. I also heard it was med students, doctors and others...doing the marking

 

This is true. Also, since it was on a volunteer basis, the med students who did choose to do marking tended to take the task very seriously, so you are in good hands IMO.

[EastCoast89]

This is true. Also, since it was on a volunteer basis, the med students who did choose to do marking tended to take the task very seriously, so you are in good hands IMO.

I agree. Med Students may even provide a fairer marking then anyone else because they have recently gone through the application process and would still remember how much it means to the hopefuls.

[quackster]

I agree. Med Students may even provide a fairer marking then anyone else because they have recently gone through the application process and would still remember how much it means to the hopefuls.

 

I'd disagree. I think most would inherently select applicants more like themselves, which might unintentionally reinforce populating spots with typical cookie cutter applicants, because lets face it - on paper, most med applicants look the same. Faculty, on the other hand, have interacted with numerous trainees and peers at all levels from all over the world and have a greater range of reference points upon which to base their assessments.

 

Unless my non-trad app ends up in a non-trad's hands, someone who will (hopefully) inherently have more appreciation for my life experiences than a first year med student - the majority of whom got in out of 3rd or 4th year undergrad, who by no fault of their own, simply by being much younger than me, and not having as much life experience as me, may not 'get' my perogative - I feel pretty SOL with this method of assessment.

 

Nothing against first year med students (heck, I want to be one!), and trad or non-trad aside, but I don't think someone who hasn't made it through the system yet themselves should decide who gets into the system based on subjective assessments of casper responses. A quantitative scoring system, yes; casper, no.

 

I hope that makes sense. It's late and I'm tired. Blah.

[Der Kaiser]

I had the same reaction as you to learning that first year med students would be marking it. But they have to differentiate different answers to the various questions somehow, and if these 3rd or 4th year pre-meds truly are cookie cutter than your answer will stand out from the rest. My gut tells me that this is a good thing, but I guess it could go either way.

 

If CASPER tests what it is supposed to test then non-trads should have an advantage (although I wouldn't underestimate traditional students). In addition, I read in an article in the Medical Post that McMaster actually wants to select against traditional students to increase "diversity." They found that the typical pre-med 1.) has dreamed of being a doctor since at least high school 2.) comes from a middle class family (of professionals usually) 3.) Goes straight from high school to uni, and in many cases straight from uni to med-school. One of the goals of CASPER is thus probably to allow the more atypical premeds a chance to go to med school. It is also not necessarily concerned with traditional ECs, but tests for the capabilities one should have gained from doing such ECs. This means that non-traditional experiences and ECs also have value. Anyway, it am very interested to see the consequences of this new method.

 

I'd disagree. I think most would inherently select applicants more like themselves, which might unintentionally reinforce populating spots with typical cookie cutter applicants, because lets face it - on paper, most med applicants look the same. Faculty, on the other hand, have interacted with numerous trainees and peers at all levels from all over the world and have a greater range of reference points upon which to base their assessments.

 

Unless my non-trad app ends up in a non-trad's hands, someone who will (hopefully) inherently have more appreciation for my life experiences than a first year med student - the majority of whom got in out of 3rd or 4th year undergrad, who by no fault of their own, simply by being much younger than me, and not having as much life experience as me, may not 'get' my perogative - I feel pretty SOL with this method of assessment.

 

Nothing against first year med students (heck, I want to be one!), and trad or non-trad aside, but I don't think someone who hasn't made it through the system yet themselves should decide who gets into the system based on subjective assessments of casper responses. A quantitative scoring system, yes; casper, no.

 

I hope that makes sense. It's late and I'm tired. Blah.

[Der Kaiser]

The article I mentioned is in CMAJ. Here's the link if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/earlyreleases/20oct10-the-changing-dynamic-of-medical-school-admissions.dtl