Official "What are my chances for McMaster" Thread

[Organomegaly]

1 VR is worth about 0.15 GPA.

 

How do you know? 

[bruhh]

CS = (VR - 11) + (GPA - 3.83)/0.15

 

 

You mean { (VR - 11) + (GPA -3.83) } /0.15 right?

-since both gpa and vr are out of 15

[ralk]

How do you know?

 

Historical stats, lower limits on GPA and VR for successful applicants, plus Mac's published statistical averages. I won't claim it's a validated measure, but if you're asking the internet for subjective opinions on your chances, you've kinda thrown complete accuracy out the window already, haven't you?

[ralk]

You mean { (VR - 11) + (GPA -3.83) } /0.15 right?

-since both gpa and vr are out of 15

Nope. The 0.15 is meant to scale GPA to the same scale as the VR score, since a change in GPA of 0.15 seems to have roughly the same impact on your chances as a single point change in VR score. The relative weighting of each component is not what that 0.15 is referring to (especially since this model has higher value pre-interview where GPA and VR have a stronger impact).

[docmm]

Looks like there are 5,270 applicants this year from the current CASPER bookings... very intimidating !

[bruhh]

Looks like there are 5,270 applicants this year from the current CASPER bookings... very intimidating !

W0t! Damnnn ..I'm applying in 2 years. At this rate the applicant pool will be around 6000 by then

[Organomegaly]

Historical stats, lower limits on GPA and VR for successful applicants, plus Mac's published statistical averages. 

 

 

You would never know how people perform on CASper, so it's not conceivable that this would give you enough information.

 

If your score on each "section" is calculated using a z-score, then you would need the mean and standard deviation to begin to come to a conclusion regarding worth. Even then, you wouldn't know how McMaster scores it - what if they give absolute values to each VR score, for instance, and don't take percentiles into account? What if they do take percentiles into account...and then a VR of 6/7/8 and 13/14/15 are worth around the same since so few people score that low/high and the z-score wouldn't change much as you get higher scores. 

 

I see no reason in attempting to create a precise formula for this when we simply don't have enough information to do so, and when there is little benefit to doing so and can actually be misinforming applicants. By looking at the official published stats, everyone can garner a general idea of where they stand.  No one should propose a more scientific way of determining that based incomplete information. 

[Organomegaly]

 

W0t! Damnnn ..I'm applying in 2 years. At this rate the applicant pool will be around 6000 by then

 

 

Scary to think it will eventually reach that high for sure. 

[ralk]

You would never know how people perform on CASper, so it's not conceivable that this would give you enough information.

 

If your score on each "section" is calculated using a z-score, then you would need the mean and standard deviation to begin to come to a conclusion regarding worth. Even then, you wouldn't know how McMaster scores it - what if they give absolute values to each VR score, for instance, and don't take percentiles into account? What if they do take percentiles into account...and then a VR of 6/7/8 and 13/14/15 are worth around the same since so few people score that low/high and the z-score wouldn't change much as you get higher scores. 

 

I see no reason in attempting to create a precise formula for this when we simply don't have enough information to do so, and when there is little benefit to doing so and can actually be misinforming applicants. By looking at the official published stats, everyone can garner a general idea of where they stand.  No one should propose a more scientific way of determining that based incomplete information. 

 

No one knows how people perform on the CASPer or exactly how McMaster considers GPA or VR scores, yet they still give advice about people's chances. This entire thread is devoted to exactly that purpose. And when giving that advice, whether they realize it or not, everyone uses some sort of model based on available information to give people a realistic idea of where they stand, knowing full well that the unavailable information (namely their CASPer performance for Mac) will likely be the deciding factor.

 

All I've presented is a quantitative model. That doesn't mean it's incredibly precise or scientifically rigorous - I pretty much said it wasn't from the beginning. But it'll give a good approximation of a person's chances and more specifically, how well they'll have to do on the CASPer.

 

I chance people for Ontario schools all the time. Check my post history, I'm probably one of the more active ones doing it here and I like to think I've developed a reputation for doing it well. When it comes to Mac, I basically use this model. I could have gone through every single person who posted here, applied it to their stats, and spit out an opinion. You wouldn't have batted an eye if I had done that, even though it's just a very inefficient way of doing the same thing. Providing the model I use just lets people do it for themselves, including those who would rather not post their stats on this forum.

 

If you think my model is misinforming, give me an example where it fails, where it delivers a result that inaccurately represents someone's chances.

[docmm]

W0t! Damnnn ..I'm applying in 2 years. At this rate the applicant pool will be around 6000 by then

 

I just realized that 5,270 probably represents applicants to McMaster and possibly a few applicants that only apply to NOSM/Ottawa with no MCAT so the number might not have increased much from last year. We'll have to wait and see for a more official post/stat. 

[damha]

Well I don't know if i'm calculating this right but with my stats of a VR of 10, and a cGPA of 3.98....that puts my "competitiveness score" at -5.67 and that can't hardly be right...I had friends last year get in with the same VR and a lower GPA. According to this calculation you said anything less than -1 is a long shot. I may be doing something wrong though with the math? 

[Organomegaly]

No one knows how people perform on the CASPer or exactly how McMaster considers GPA or VR scores, yet they still give advice about people's chances. This entire thread is devoted to exactly that purpose. And people have been "chanced" well on a qualitative level. Where I take issue is in you proposing that it's formulaic and simple to figure out when you're in as much of a black box as everyone else is. And when giving that advice, whether they realize it or not, everyone uses some sort of model The model other people use is available , officially published information. No one attempted to have mathematical values available.  based on available information to give people a realistic idea of where they stand, knowing full well that the unavailable information (namely their CASPer performance for Mac) will likely be the deciding factor.

 

All I've presented is a quantitative model. That doesn't mean it's incredibly precise or scientifically rigorous - I pretty much said it wasn't from the beginning. Yet, your medium for expressing this information is inconsistent with your disclaimer. Don't use numbers unless you can back them. You proposing "0.15" based on months of chancing people makes absolutely no sense. If you're attempting to base it on who received interviews, you can't tell what the relationship between VR/GPA given that CASper information is missing. So again, where is your evidence? But it'll give a good approximation of a person's chances and more specifically, how well they'll have to do on the CASPer. It attempts to give more precise information where a qualitative measure already met that same purpose. 

 

I chance people for Ontario schools all the time. Check my post history, I'm probably one of the more active ones doing it here and I like to think I've developed

a reputation for doing it well. It doesn't take much to determine where somebody stands on the GPA/VR spectrum. Link the McMaster official statistics and you're job will have been done. When it comes to Mac, I basically use this model. I could have gone through every single person who posted here, applied it to their stats, and spit out an opinion. You wouldn't have batted an eye if I had done that, even though it's just a very inefficient way of doing the same thing. Providing the model I use just lets people do it for themselves, including those who would rather not post their stats on this forum. 

 

If you think my model is misinforming, give me an example where it fails, where it delivers a result that inaccurately represents someone's chances. Why is your mathematical formula superior to simply informing people about the admission statistics and having them reach their own conclusions based on the only legit source of information available? Is there really any point in attempting to quantifying anything? Will it help any applicant?

 

All I'm saying is that we should take an evidence-based approach to admissions - like we would anything else - and only share information with others that we know to be true or has a very high chance of being true. My main issue with what you have done is more in principal than in practice. 

[Organomegaly]

Well I don't know if i'm calculating this right but with my stats of a VR of 10, and a cGPA of 3.98....that puts my "competitiveness score" at -5.67 and that can't hardly be right...I had friends last year get in with the same VR and a lower GPA. According to this calculation you said anything less than -1 is a long shot. I may be doing something wrong though with the math? 

 

According to his scale, you would have a competitive score of "0". Which means you would need an average CASper score in order to receive an interview. However, it could be the case that your GPA/VR combo puts you at a slight advantage or a slight disadvantage, and that would be reflected in the CASper score you require for success.

 

Either way, a qualitative appraisal would tell you you're in good shape going into the exam. 

 

A great example of how quantifying it with essentially fabricated numbers is not necessary. 

[katakari]

Well I don't know if i'm calculating this right but with my stats of a VR of 10, and a cGPA of 3.98....that puts my "competitiveness score" at -5.67 and that can't hardly be right...I had friends last year get in with the same VR and a lower GPA. According to this calculation you said anything less than -1 is a long shot. I may be doing something wrong though with the math? 

 

Try this one. One of my friends, accepted applicant, VR 8, GPA 4.0. Competitiveness score of -18.

 

The problem with a quantitative model is that it gives the illusion of expertise. Of course, every opinion here is a grain of salt, but I would not want anyone to think that any opinion is more than anecdote. It would be deceptive of a medical student to use fabricated statistics and numbers to convince a premed of a particular opinion.

[ralk]

Well I don't know if i'm calculating this right but with my stats of a VR of 10, and a cGPA of 3.98....that puts my "competitiveness score" at -5.67 and that can't hardly be right...I had friends last year get in with the same VR and a lower GPA. According to this calculation you said anything less than -1 is a long shot. I may be doing something wrong though with the math? 

 

Your CS would be 0 on the dot, right on average. And your chances are pretty much average. You used the formula shervin posted, not the one I did.

[ralk]

Try this one. One of my friends, accepted applicant, VR 8, GPA 4.0. Competitiveness score of -18.

 

The problem with a quantitative model is that it gives the illusion of expertise. Of course, every opinion here is a grain of salt, but I would not want anyone to think that any opinion is more than anecdote. It would be deceptive of a medical student to use fabricated statistics and numbers to convince a premed of a particular opinion.

 

Nope, used the wrong formula again. That would be a CS of -1.87. A long shot, certainly, only 4 people got in last year with a VR less than 9, but still possible.

[ralk]

 

No one knows how people perform on the CASPer or exactly how McMaster considers GPA or VR scores, yet they still give advice about people's chances. This entire thread is devoted to exactly that purpose. And people have been "chanced" well on a qualitative level. Where I take issue is in you proposing that it's formulaic and simple to figure out when you're in as much of a black box as everyone else is. And when giving that advice, whether they realize it or not, everyone uses some sort of model The model other people use is available , officially published information. No one attempted to have mathematical values available.  based on available information to give people a realistic idea of where they stand, knowing full well that the unavailable information (namely their CASPer performance for Mac) will likely be the deciding factor.

 

All I've presented is a quantitative model. That doesn't mean it's incredibly precise or scientifically rigorous - I pretty much said it wasn't from the beginning. Yet, your medium for expressing this information is inconsistent with your disclaimer. Don't use numbers unless you can back them. You proposing "0.15" based on months of chancing people makes absolutely no sense. If you're attempting to base it on who received interviews, you can't tell what the relationship between VR/GPA given that CASper information is missing. So again, where is your evidence? But it'll give a good approximation of a person's chances and more specifically, how well they'll have to do on the CASPer. It attempts to give more precise information where a qualitative measure already met that same purpose. 

 

I chance people for Ontario schools all the time. Check my post history, I'm probably one of the more active ones doing it here and I like to think I've developed

a reputation for doing it well. It doesn't take much to determine where somebody stands on the GPA/VR spectrum. Link the McMaster official statistics and you're job will have been done. When it comes to Mac, I basically use this model. I could have gone through every single person who posted here, applied it to their stats, and spit out an opinion. You wouldn't have batted an eye if I had done that, even though it's just a very inefficient way of doing the same thing. Providing the model I use just lets people do it for themselves, including those who would rather not post their stats on this forum. 

 

If you think my model is misinforming, give me an example where it fails, where it delivers a result that inaccurately represents someone's chances. Why is your mathematical formula superior to simply informing people about the admission statistics and having them reach their own conclusions based on the only legit source of information available? Is there really any point in attempting to quantifying anything? Will it help any applicant?

 

All I'm saying is that we should take an evidence-based approach to admissions - like we would anything else - and only share information with others that we know to be true or has a very high chance of being true. My main issue with what you have done is more in principal than in practice. 

 

 

1) Never said it was superior, just that it's faster and more accessible. (Well, it's supposed to be, but between debating you and correcting arithmetic, I'm probably in the negative right now time-wise)

 

2) Everyone has a model or they're basing their opinion on nothing. Whether they actually do the math like I have or go with an informed intuition, they're compiling known information, coming to a general idea of what each factor contributes to the final result, then applying the general case to specific examples to form a prediction. The only thing I'm doing different is showing my process so that it can be used by anyone.

 

3) I'm not basing my numbers off of my track record of giving feedback; that would be an argument from authority and wouldn't be valid. Fortunately, that's not the argument I'm making. I'm basing my numbers off the official stats from Mac, as well as the results posted on this forum over the past two years. You're right, I could link those two to people and let them synthesize that information to come up with their chances themselves. All I've done is (tried) to save them the synthesis step. You're right, it doesn't take much to figure out where someone stands on the GPA/VR spectrum - yet we have a whole thread of people asking just that and, lately, not getting answers.

 

4) You still haven't given a counter-example. I'll happily retract what I've said if you can demonstrate that my formula is non-generalizable.

[Organomegaly]

 

The problem with a quantitative model is that it gives the illusion of expertise. Of course, every opinion here is a grain of salt, but I would not want anyone to think that any opinion is more than anecdote. It would be deceptive of a medical student to use fabricated statistics and numbers to convince a premed of a particular opinion.

 

This summarizes everything I want to say. I think I've communicated my point well-enough for anyone reading to make a decision about the quality of what they read, if they haven't already. 

[ni95]

xxxxx

[ralk]

This summarizes everything I want to say. I think I've communicated my point well-enough for anyone reading to make a decision about the quality of what they read, if they haven't already. 

 

That's a fair criticism and I don't want to imply that anything I've said is anything more than my informed opinion. I've added a disclaimer to my original post.

 

However, you still have not provided a counter-example, so I stand by my model (on reflection, I'll admit that when it comes to very high VR scores the evidence for my assertions is less compelling, but this affects a very small subset of applicants).

 

More importantly, I am very disheartened to see that when someone asks for help, only a few people get a response (thank you to Jaybird, Timansid, Aletheist, and others who have provided constructive feedback over the past few weeks), yet when an attempt to provide answers is made, no time is wasted in attacking it. You might disagree with my efforts to provide help, but at least I'm trying...

[ralk]

How about 10 VR and 3.99 GPA (IP, from Hamilton, go to Mac)? I was consistently getting 12s on AAMC test VR so super disappointed today

 

Sorry to hear about the disappoint VR result, but a 10 is still quite competitive, especially with your GPA. You'll still need a decent result on your CASPer, but you certainly won't have to do amazingly well either to get an interview 

[Organomegaly]

That's a fair criticism and I don't want to imply that anything I've said is anything more than my informed opinion. I've added a disclaimer to my original post.

 

However, you still have not provided a counter-example, so I stand by my model (on reflection, I'll admit that when it comes to very high VR scores the evidence for my assertions is less compelling, but this affects a very small subset of applicants).

 

More importantly, I am very disheartened to see that when someone asks for help, only a few people get a response (thank you to Jaybird, Timansid, Aletheist, and others who have provided constructive feedback over the past few weeks), yet when an attempt to provide answers is made, no time is wasted in attacking it. You might disagree with my efforts to provide help, but at least I'm trying...

 

Sorry if I came across as harsh, but there are also dozens of pages of past responses here that applicants can go through. Nearly everyone's situation has been replicated. These applicants can simply look through the repertoire of information already available and see what has already been said. Or they can search the admission statistics (perhaps it could be 'stickied' at the front if it isn't already). It is fairly simple to come to an informed decision about paying the application fee to McMaster with a tiny bit of pro-activeness. At the end of the day, the message sent to everyone should be the same: do as best as you can on your CASper. That's what'll "help" applicants the most in my opinion. 

[KellyClarkson]

OMSAS recently published their *correct* total applicant number from the 2013-2014 cycle: 6,593 total applicants with 4,973 of them applying to McMaster. What an incredible increase (+611 applicants) from the 2012-2013 cycle, while retaining the same number of medical school seats. I can only wonder how many more applicants there will be during this 2014-2015 application cycle.

 

http://www.ouac.on.ca/statistics/med_app_stats/

[Aetherus]

I mentioned the idea of a formula a while back on this thread. This thread gets so many posts and all of them could have been given an answer using a formula. This thread is very redundant since McMaster does not look at EC's....

[ralk]

Sorry if I came across as harsh, but there are also dozens of pages of past responses here that applicants can go through. Nearly everyone's situation has been replicated. These applicants can simply look through the repertoire of information already available and see what has already been said. Or they can search the admission statistics (perhaps it could be 'stickied' at the front if it isn't already). It is fairly simple to come to an informed decision about paying the application fee to McMaster with a tiny bit of pro-activeness. At the end of the day, the message sent to everyone should be the same: do as best as you can on your CASper. That's what'll "help" applicants the most in my opinion. 

 

I mostly agree with everything you've said. However, I don't think that contradicts what I've put forth, or the need to respond to individuals here. While most can find individuals in a similar situation, not everyone can - I certainly couldn't when I applied. More importantly, the continued use of this thread by applicants who could look up previous responses (and many do) shows a need for continued responses. I tried to address a swath of them with one answer that can be applied to those who haven't chosen to post, but would still like an answer. This forum has a large number of lurkers looking for answers too.

 

Basically, what I presented is a compromise between your suggestion that people can figure it out for themselves, and an individualized response to every poster. My formula attempts to let anyone get an idea of where they stand, not just someone with similar stats, without wading through two years of official stats and unofficial posts here.