Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Official "What are my chances for McMaster" Thread


Recommended Posts

Theoretically the only way to validate it is to look for low stat invites (CARS AND GPA) and assume they aced CASPer. Any other way (e.g. 132/4.0 rejected) has the flaw that someone could have red flagged CASPer and been eliminated that way. There's also going to be some availability bias in that seeing someone with high stats rejected is more of a shock. 

I just skimmed invite stats quickly but seeing someone with near perfect stats and a bottom 20% at Manitoba CASPer (different pools admittedly) get invited would seem to validate the floor of the model. But who knows, COVID could well push the floor up (and minimum % needed) over the next years since the data used was from the last couple of years before this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 9/19/2020 at 5:39 PM, MedicineLCS said:

You're in a great spot. You need to be in about the top 2/3rds, so don't blow off CASPer entirely, but don't stress yourself out too much either. You're right around the interview average (which means about half below, about half above, although there is skew) so don't expect anything, but don't be surprised if you get a nice email in January/February. 

Also, since we have the study data now, I thought I'd share the charts I made for a friend a few months ago to figure out the minimum CASPer percentile needed for a given MCAT/GPA (they were wondering about the merits of rewriting/additional undergrad years and I was curious).

A quick word on methodology is that I used the study data means and SDs to assume a normal distribution of GPA/CARS/CASPer (which is not a fair assumption for GPA/CARS, but hey, it's the best we have) and then found the lowest aggregate "score" (defined as points out of 96 (32 CARS, 32 CASPer, 32 GPA) someone who got an interview had (who wasn't in a special stream) in the last couple of years, based on their relation to the pre-interview pool in the study. This turns out to be about a 64 (there are a bunch in the mid-high 60s, even if most of the interview pool are in the 70s+). Since people don't know their CASPer result I assumed the low stat interview invites maxed out CASPer (32/32), which is unlikely, so the actual cutoff is probably a bit lower than the 64. Note that the data will be less accurate at extremes (high/low CARS/GPA). 

As a final word of warning, the numbers on here seem very deterministic, but because I had to make a number of assumptions, they're really not that definitive. Add maybe 5-10% to the percentiles shown and you get a more realistic range of the minimum CASPer performance you should be aiming for. The data may also seem optomistic since it's talking about the lowest score ever seen in multiple cycles, most people interviewing are well into the green zone as a result. Don't underestimate CASPer based off this chart or ask why you didn't interview when you needed a 12th percentile result or something (answer, you scored below that range or red flagged it). 

Hopefully posting this allows everyone to figure out their own chances based off the. Percentiles above 100 are mathematically impossible, so if you add some flex room, anything above a 110-115 isn't going to be happening. And again, these should not be treated as definitive, down to the last digit, estimates, but as ball-park guesstimates based off 30 minutes of Excel work for a friend. The math used to this is inherent error prone in changing multiple percentile scores into straight scores and back to percentiles, but it's better than nothing. 

QxeSmh6.png

 

I can anecdotaly back this up. I had a 130 CARS and 3.99 gpa and a 21-40 percentile casper at Manitoba. 

I got interview waitlisted at Mac and eventually got off the waitlist this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 months later...

Deciding whether to submit my app, because $$$ and I don't know if my heart can handle another all-rejection cycle

GPA: 3.79

CARS: 130

(I've applied to Mac before and didn't get an interview invite. Probably bombed CASPer?)

Update: got 4th quartile CASPer but I don't know how much more of a shot it gives me since I don't know my actual percentile :- (

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think the data isn't normally distributed so you can't trust the methodology to make the chart, which they disclose in the post with the chart, and they use the SD from the paper I think. If you consider the GPA histogram for instance. The peak will likely be 3.8-3.9 with a sharp fall off probably below ~3.5 (self-selected in that only people with a compeditive GPA will apply, in theory) and a hard cut off at 3.0, which is the minimum requirement.

Unfortunately, this stuff is really hard to predict, but at least now people know their casper quartile so it may be a little less opaque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the data is perfectly normally distributed but if you look at the study table (https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-020-02126-0/tables/1), the more granular supplemental table, and the number of applications there are evidently a TON of people applying who have little to no chance dragging that average down. I don't think it's fair to assume that only people competitive (by our standards) will self-select. Given Mac's very invitingly simple application process and how many premeds I regularly encountered (Back when I was more active in talking to them) who were downright delusional on the role of "luck" I think there are many people applying who have essentially 0% chance (which is why I made the table, to help show that you shouldn't get your hopes up/waste money if you're throwing a 3.3/123 application in). There's also going to be sampling bias here; when the OMSAS button mystery developed you had a ton of people posting and the average was a bit higher than the actual offer data so you get some skew here in who's posting. 

Calgary used to publish applicant stats and yes, right skew, but still a long tail out to the left and their mean and SD (3.77 & 0.206) were both higher and more narrow than the Mac data (with about a third as many applications). A lower mean and a higher SD would suggest a far more leftward skew than that data. Also 4.0s are a lot easier to get using Calgary's weighting and Alberta grading scheme than they are under an OMSAS cGPA. 

My hope is someone can update the table now that quartile ranks are out and refine it. If (after invites come out) someone wants the original data feel free to message me and I'll share it. 

EDIT: Also worth remembering there will be more people towards the 75th percentile in the 4th quartile box than the 100th for CASPer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...