smile101 Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Btw I just noticed that in Dr walkers blog he said that grad grades have never been used, but this is not what I have heard from Adele in previous years... Was anyone else told that grad grades were used in previous years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrogirl Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Btw I just noticed that in Dr walkers blog he said that grad grades have never been used, but this is not what I have heard from Adele in previous years... Was anyone else told that grad grades were used in previous years? I think maybe they weren't used to calculate your cGPA, but they could be one of your best two years to qualify for full file review. But maybe after that they didn't look at them anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 I think maybe they weren't used to calculate your cGPA, but they could be one of your best two years to qualify for full file review. But maybe after that they didn't look at them anymore? My understanding was that previously they took your best two years for calucation of eligibility GPA>3.2, and if you took a single course per year in you MSc or PhD (?) (considered full-time grad course load), then they would consider your best year MSc GPA + your best undergrad year in the GPA eligibility calculation. I assume that afterwards they used to look at the grad GPA in the subjective academic section, and we all know now that they will definitely be doing it this year (as per Dr. Walker comments on the blog). So really, the one big change in that section is that people (IPs) with undergrad best 3 years cGPA<3.2 will not be eligible to apply if their grad degree is not completed. I guess we could speculate that if someone's undergrad years aren't indicative of their current academic abilities (due to low GPA), then the completion of grad degree in itself could be such an indication. Therefore the grades from a grad degree would be considered as per Dr. Walker's explanation. I could see some value in doing this. By previous rules, all kinds of people with poor undergrad cGPAs could apply because they got their first A in a grad course and had a 4.0 grad GPA all of a sudden. Let's say your best 3 years undergrad cGPA is 3.15 and you are in your second year of MSc (yeah, lets say you got admitted with that GPA into the grad program). By the current rules, you are not eligible. By the previous rules you would take your best undergrad year, lets say 3.5, and your 4.0 grad GPA based on the grad course you took last fall - that makes your 2-best year GPA 3.75, so you are now eligible. I am sure that this doesn't make many people happy, but at the same time it unfairly used to put them at an advantage when they were selected next to an undergrad who actually had a 3.75 best 2-years GPA. I am a grad student myself and have a lot of respect for grad students:p , but I don't think that this was a 100% fair to the undergrad student in my example. Now, I think, it is more or less the same playing-field and as a grad student with a low undergrad cGPA, you gotta earn your bonus GPA year by graduating. Anyway, I am sure I am just being redundant here with my thoughts. Correct me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Erk is always right. Even though he won't help you move. Haha, if by "always right" you mean "good at sounding like he knows stuff" then I agree that's how I made it through my master's. Actually knowledge less so But seriously, I can't see any reason why they'd punish multiple degree holders, or people with excellent late-career GPA versus poor early-career. It goes against the spirit of all the other changes, and I think that's why they've put such emphasis on the 'subjective' component. In all other actions they are trying to make it clear that they'll review a person's file as a whole, not based on simplified breakdowns; that's part of the reason for the focus on full career GPA instead of just two top years. I think it's only logical to assume that part of that is recognising someone who has improved a great deal recently compared to old years. That said, I think they might be able to do a better job fine tuning this system; for example, by allowing applicants to drop their first undergraduate years if they are more than x number of years old, provided they have still got enough years to meet the minimum credit requirements for application (or perhaps provided that the applicant has graduated a different degree since then? Or given a certain standard deviation of those years away from the mean GPA of more recent ones? The math here could get interesting.) Regarding the grad degree GPA thing, previously as far as I understood it, grad GPA was mainly just part of the subjective component. Most research based grad students get some two to six credits' worth of course work: with only the two best years figured in, the effect was minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloh Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 The 2-year-before-file-review was probably one of the most stupid and deceiving things they had in their file review. It's entire purpose was to trick applicants (who had zero chance of getting in), to apply and throw away ~100$ in the application fee. I would bet that in over 20 years, there's only been a handful of people that got through the cracks on that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Haha, if by "always right" you mean "good at sounding like he knows stuff" then I agree that's how I made it through my master's. Actually knowledge less so But seriously, I can't see any reason why they'd punish multiple degree holders, or people with excellent late-career GPA versus poor early-career. It goes against the spirit of all the other changes, and I think that's why they've put such emphasis on the 'subjective' component. In all other actions they are trying to make it clear that they'll review a person's file as a whole, not based on simplified breakdowns; that's part of the reason for the focus on full career GPA instead of just two top years. I think it's only logical to assume that part of that is recognising someone who has improved a great deal recently compared to old years. That said, I think they might be able to do a better job fine tuning this system; for example, by allowing applicants to drop their first undergraduate years if they are more than x number of years old, provided they have still got enough years to meet the minimum credit requirements for application (or perhaps provided that the applicant has graduated a different degree since then? Or given a certain standard deviation of those years away from the mean GPA of more recent ones? The math here could get interesting.) Regarding the grad degree GPA thing, previously as far as I understood it, grad GPA was mainly just part of the subjective component. Most research based grad students get some two to six credits' worth of course work: with only the two best years figured in, the effect was minimal. In the application manual from last year it stated that they would consider your best 2 years of undergrad for eligibility OR 1 best year form undergrad + 1 best year from grad if you have taken one/grad course per year (or something along those lines) for eligibility. Thus many students with poor undergrad GPA could have gotten a boost and had their file reviewed. But that's just the eligibility GPA. The actual GPA weight was, like you said, based on factors other than that, including the subjective component (like grad marks, second degree and only god knows what else). All I was saying (maybe not that eloquently:p ) was that including that 4.0 grad GPA could have potentially made otherwise ineligible students eligible to apply in previous years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmosis Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 The 2-year-before-file-review was probably one of the most stupid and deceiving things they had in their file review. It's entire purpose was to trick applicants (who had zero chance of getting in), to apply and throw away ~100$ in the application fee. I would bet that in over 20 years, there's only been a handful of people that got through the cracks on that rule. this is an excellent point. Dr. Walker eludes to this in his blog, stating that the previous system was misleading, making applicants who had a a good two year gpa (> 3.7) think they had a shot, even thought there cumulative gpa may have been low (< 3.2). i feel bad for applicants who were hoping they had a decent shot at uofc based on the two year calculation. but Dr. Walker has just made things more transparent by basically saying that if an applicant does not have a cumulative gpa of atleast 3.6, the chances of meeting the academic requirements will be severely compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epson Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 but Dr. Walker has just made things more transparent by basically saying that if an applicant does not have a cumulative gpa of atleast 3.6, the chances of meeting the academic requirements will be severely compromised. is this with the lowest yr dropped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_whiz Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 is this with the lowest yr dropped? if you have a degree. yess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chojo Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 ...but Dr. Walker has just made things more transparent by basically saying that if an applicant does not have a cumulative gpa of atleast 3.6, the chances of meeting the academic requirements will be severely compromised. Just curious, where has he talked about this GPA of 3.6 stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Just curious, where has he talked about this GPA of 3.6 stuff? I am wondering the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnycupcakes Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I am wondering the same thing. http://mdadmissions.ucalgaryblogs.ca/files/2011/07/Changes-to-Application-Process-2011.pdf There are quite the changes in the upcoming year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoote Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://mdadmissions.ucalgaryblogs.ca/files/2011/07/Changes-to-Application-Process-2011.pdf There are quite the changes in the upcoming year... I did a quick search and didn't find any reference to the Cumulative GPA needing to be 3.6 comment. Can you point it out please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoote Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 When UofC looks at the BS and PS sections of the MCAT as part of the subjective assessment of academic merit, how do you think they would feel about a non-science applicant with a good VR (say around 10 or 11) but a poor BS/PS (say around a 5 or 6 in each)? I read about an applicant to Mac who is going to only study for the VR because they are not a science major and only have one month till the MCAT. Wondering if that would work for UofC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxcv Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I did a quick search and didn't find any reference to the Cumulative GPA needing to be 3.6 comment. Can you point it out please? It was never a requirement. The minimum was 3.2, but no one gets in with that, except a few. The average hoovered around 3.6ish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxcv Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 When UofC looks at the BS and PS sections of the MCAT as part of the subjective assessment of academic merit, how do you think they would feel about a non-science applicant with a good VR (say around 10 or 11) but a poor BS/PS (say around a 5 or 6 in each)? I read about an applicant to Mac who is going to only study for the VR because they are not a science major and only have one month till the MCAT. Wondering if that would work for UofC. From the wording on the PDF, it seems that they don't really care about PS, for science or non-science, unless you are a physical chemistry major and don't do well. For the BS, it isn't really meaningful if you are non-science student, but it is somewhat meaningful if you are a science student (according to the ADCOM view). Also remember that the subjective component is compromised of the MCAT (perhaps they might look at the score trends, number of times taken) and the GPA. But the determining factor, unlike the past, will be the ECs since it comprimises of 60%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountantGirl Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think in the subjective assessment it will be meaningful if you are a non science student and get 12s or another good mark. I'm not a science student and I'm studying my bum off with the goal of 8s or better. For me to get 8s with none of the common prereqs I feel would reflect well on the subjective because it means that I worked really hard and taught myself all of the material. :-) ETA but maybe I'm just hopeful!! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxcv Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think in the subjective assessment it will be meaningful if you are a non science student and get 12s or another good mark. I'm not a science student and I'm studying my bum off with the goal of 8s or better. For me to get 8s with none of the common prereqs I feel would reflect well on the subjective because it means that I worked really hard and taught myself all of the material. :-) ETA but maybe I'm just hopeful!! ;-) I'm sure you will do fine (Calgary and Mac are biased towards non-science students anways, especially humanities, social sciences...). However, don't be complacent with an 8. Keep working hard and try to do your best. And even if you don't get an 8, remember that the subjective component is only 10%. Last year, the cut-off for interview was 70.something, and the year before was around 67. Doing well on the ECs is someones best chance of getting an interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithril Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Interesting to see that Calgary is looking at only VR now when the AAMC published this document not too long ago: https://www.aamc.org/download/101020/data/writingsample.pdf.pdf See pages 37 and 39. USMLE Step 1, Step 2 clinical knowledge, and Step 3 all seem to show strong (and strongest) correlation with BS scores. Step 2 clinical skills has weak correlation with everything. And the writing sample is just lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Interesting to see that Calgary is looking at only VR now when the AAMC published this document not too long ago: https://www.aamc.org/download/101020/data/writingsample.pdf.pdf See pages 37 and 39. USMLE Step 1, Step 2 clinical knowledge, and Step 3 all seem to show strong (and strongest) correlation with BS scores. Step 2 clinical skills has weak correlation with everything. And the writing sample is just lol. They've commented explicitly on that several times. The BS section has the strongest correlation to ability to succeed as a medical student, but according to Ucalgary, VR has a stronger correlation to success in the actual medical profession. The latter is what I think they are aiming for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCUCUC Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Haven't seen their source for the VR correlation though, anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dttran Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Just curious, where has he talked about this GPA of 3.6 stuff? Have a look at the blog.... I asked him the question about the 3.6 GPA and his response was that basically the poster is in error. Cheers, dttran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.