Countdown to interview decisions!

[shearkha]

I start the conversation.

 

I called the admin office today and, since they have already told us that we can't ask them about the decision release date, I asked them a different question that could potentially lead us to the date that notifications are coming out: when will the interim stats come out? The answer was: "they will come out next week." Now, last year the interim stats were released on the day the notifications went out, so I think it's safe to conclude that the decisions will be released next week.

 

Plus, what do people think about the awfully vague email about AQ and NAQ? Initially I thought they may have changed the AQ formula. But after reading the email a couple more times it seems like they may have increased the NAQ's weight. I'm still not sure, the email looks like a verbal question, the more you think about it the more confusing it becomes.

[Guest levski21]

relax. they'll come out when they come out

[shearkha]

relax. they'll come out when they come out

 

What are you doing checking premed101 then? Go have a life

[shadow_knight]

What are you doing checking premed101 then? Go have a life

 

lol...........

[esther0123]

I start the conversation.

 

I called the admin office today and, since they have already told us that we can't ask them about the decision release date, I asked them a different question that could potentially lead us to the date that notifications are coming out: when will the interim stats come out? The answer was: "they will come out next week." Now, last year the interim stats were released on the day the notifications went out, so I think it's safe to conclude that the decisions will be released next week.

 

Plus, what do people think about the awfully vague email about AQ and NAQ? Initially I thought they may have changed the AQ formula. But after reading the email a couple more times it seems like they may have increased the NAQ's weight. I'm still not sure, the email looks like a verbal question, the more you think about it the more confusing it becomes.

 

LOLOLOL HILARIOUS. I like the way you roll. Hey, we are all curious! And thanks. I figured it would be something like next week seeing the increased number of applicants, delayed interview booking date compared to last year, etc etc.

[mlgquickscopepro]

Heh, that's pretty clever of you. Good luck to you all! Makes sense that they'd come out a little later than last year due to the larger number of applicants. I'm pretty confident about my AQ being strong but I'm worried about how they'll evaluate my NAQs - I've got a lot of leadership and community service stuff but it's not like I've saved the world or anything...

[fugacity]

Just wanted to wish you guys the best of luck before interview invites come out! If possible, don't let this distract you from studying for final exams or other important things in your life. Don't worry about the little things and just keep the final goal front and center in your mind. Good luck

[Med2018Hopeful]

My guess is that the new evaluation process does not change the weighting between the AQ and NAQ (both 50%) but changes the way the AQ scores are assigned.

 

Previously the AQ was : AQ=GPA(in percent)*10/3 - 250 therefore anyone with 90+ average maxed out their AQ score.

 

I think that now they will standardize the AQ similar to the way the NAQ section is standardized or the MCAT is standardized.

 

If average Goa for the Applicant pool is 88% then having 90 isn't really that special. Therefore the Academic score shouldn't be maxed out. this makes it unfair for non-trads (which UBC loves) because it is likely they will have a low GPA and great NAQ material. Therefore standardizing the AQ gives it less of a weight when determining whether an applicant gets an interview.

 

Cut-off for interview last year was a 62.15 TFR score therefore people with 90+ average only needed a 12.15 on their NAQ to be invited for an interview. Obviously this leads to a lot of interviewees with great GPAs but very low NAQ scores. This also makes it impossible for anyone with less than a 78.75% GPA (12.15=AQ) to be offered an interview.

 

Just my $.02 take it or leave it

[Economist]

My guess is that the new evaluation process does not change the weighting between the AQ and NAQ (both 50%) but changes the way the AQ scores are assigned.

 

Previously the AQ was : AQ=GPA(in percent)*10/3 - 250 therefore anyone with 90+ average maxed out their AQ score.

 

I think that now they will standardize the AQ similar to the way the NAQ section is standardized or the MCAT is standardized.

 

If average Goa for the Applicant pool is 88% then having 90 isn't really that special. Therefore the Academic score shouldn't be maxed out. this makes it unfair for non-trads (which UBC loves) because it is likely they will have a low GPA and great NAQ material. Therefore standardizing the AQ gives it less of a weight when determining whether an applicant gets an interview.

 

Cut-off for interview last year was a 62.15 TFR score therefore people with 90+ average only needed a 12.15 on their NAQ to be invited for an interview. Obviously this leads to a lot of interviewees with great GPAs but very low NAQ scores. This also makes it impossible for anyone with less than a 78.75% GPA (12.15=AQ) to be offered an interview.

 

Just my $.02 take it or leave it

I'm guessing less emphasis on AQ (maybe out of 35 or 40) and make NAQ weigh more (60 or 65) since they said that allocation of points will change. Then again, they said that you will be most likely be surprised by the AQ score so perhaps they will completely change it so that 1% is not as drastic...

[shearkha]

My guess is that the new evaluation process does not change the weighting between the AQ and NAQ (both 50%) but changes the way the AQ scores are assigned.

 

Previously the AQ was : AQ=GPA(in percent)*10/3 - 250 therefore anyone with 90+ average maxed out their AQ score.

 

I think that now they will standardize the AQ similar to the way the NAQ section is standardized or the MCAT is standardized.

 

If average Goa for the Applicant pool is 88% then having 90 isn't really that special. Therefore the Academic score shouldn't be maxed out. this makes it unfair for non-trads (which UBC loves) because it is likely they will have a low GPA and great NAQ material. Therefore standardizing the AQ gives it less of a weight when determining whether an applicant gets an interview.

 

Cut-off for interview last year was a 62.15 TFR score therefore people with 90+ average only needed a 12.15 on their NAQ to be invited for an interview. Obviously this leads to a lot of interviewees with great GPAs but very low NAQ scores. This also makes it impossible for anyone with less than a 78.75% GPA (12.15=AQ) to be offered an interview.

 

Just my $.02 take it or leave it

 

This is what I thought they'd do too, but they can only change the AQ ceiling by a maximum of 2% (i.e. 92%). Here's why: if you look at the conversion table 2 (http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/) you see that if an applicant is from a academic institute that does not award A+, the max GPA s/he can get is a 92%. So AQ's max can not go above 92%. But, changing AQ formula is still more probable than changing the AQ and NAQ weight, because if you go back in their stats they have ALWAYS used 50% AQ and 50% NAQ, so it's very unlikely they'd change that. Another possibility is that they may have changed the AQ formula from a linear equation (i.e. 10/3*GPA-250) to a more complicated equation, which can achieve the effects you discussed, but still have the same max and min (i.e. 90% --> AQ=50, 75% --> AQ =0).

[Savac]

This is what I thought they'd do too, but they can only change the AQ ceiling by a maximum of 2% (i.e. 92%). Here's why: if you look at the conversion table 2 (http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/) you see that if an applicant is from a academic institute that does not award A+, the max GPA s/he can get is a 92%. So AQ's max can not go above 92%. But, changing AQ formula is still more probable than changing the AQ and NAQ weight, because if you go back in their stats they have ALWAYS used 50% AQ and 50% NAQ, so it's very unlikely they'd change that. Another possibility is that they may have changed the AQ formula from a linear equation (i.e. 10/3*GPA-250) to a more complicated equation, which can achieve the effects you discussed, but still have the same max and min (i.e. 90% --> AQ=50, 75% --> AQ =0).

 

If I were them I would just normalize the AQ scores instead of using a linear scale, but that's just me.

[med-dream]

My guess is that the new evaluation process does not change the weighting between the AQ and NAQ (both 50%) but changes the way the AQ scores are assigned.

 

Previously the AQ was : AQ=GPA(in percent)*10/3 - 250 therefore anyone with 90+ average maxed out their AQ score.

 

I think that now they will standardize the AQ similar to the way the NAQ section is standardized or the MCAT is standardized.

 

If average Goa for the Applicant pool is 88% then having 90 isn't really that special. Therefore the Academic score shouldn't be maxed out. this makes it unfair for non-trads (which UBC loves) because it is likely they will have a low GPA and great NAQ material. Therefore standardizing the AQ gives it less of a weight when determining whether an applicant gets an interview.

 

Cut-off for interview last year was a 62.15 TFR score therefore people with 90+ average only needed a 12.15 on their NAQ to be invited for an interview. Obviously this leads to a lot of interviewees with great GPAs but very low NAQ scores. This also makes it impossible for anyone with less than a 78.75% GPA (12.15=AQ) to be offered an interview.

 

Just my $.02 take it or leave it

 

I agree with you. For the applicant with 80% GPA, AQ is only about 16+, NAQ has to be 46+ which is almost impossible. But 80% & 90% are both considered good grades academically in the universities. For 90%+ applicants, it is very easy to get an interview without spending more time on NAQ. At the final selection, it is easy for them to be selected without very high interview score as they count everything together. There were some experience that some applicants got in because of 90%+ GPA whose friends around thought their personality may not be suitable for the career.

[jgal_22]

I start the conversation.

 

I called the admin office today and, since they have already told us that we can't ask them about the decision release date, I asked them a different question that could potentially lead us to the date that notifications are coming out: when will the interim stats come out? The answer was: "they will come out next week." Now, last year the interim stats were released on the day the notifications went out, so I think it's safe to conclude that the decisions will be released next week.

 

Plus, what do people think about the awfully vague email about AQ and NAQ? Initially I thought they may have changed the AQ formula. But after reading the email a couple more times it seems like they may have increased the NAQ's weight. I'm still not sure, the email looks like a verbal question, the more you think about it the more confusing it becomes.

 

Haha that is so true! It was probably the most cryptic, unnecessarily long, uninformative email I've ever read. After I read it, I was just like "what does this all mean? Why am I even more confused?!" They could have just summed everything up in a couple sentences. Anyway, I guess we will all find out by next week!

[med-dream]

This is what I thought they'd do too, but they can only change the AQ ceiling by a maximum of 2% (i.e. 92%). Here's why: if you look at the conversion table 2 (http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/) you see that if an applicant is from a academic institute that does not award A+, the max GPA s/he can get is a 92%. So AQ's max can not go above 92%. But, changing AQ formula is still more probable than changing the AQ and NAQ weight, because if you go back in their stats they have ALWAYS used 50% AQ and 50% NAQ, so it's very unlikely they'd change that. Another possibility is that they may have changed the AQ formula from a linear equation (i.e. 10/3*GPA-250) to a more complicated equation, which can achieve the effects you discussed, but still have the same max and min (i.e. 90% --> AQ=50, 75% --> AQ =0).

 

I don't think counting 75% GPA as 0 AQ is fair. I would suggest to calculate them in a simple way: if 100% GPA is considered 50 AQ, then 75% GPA is 37.5 AQ. Say the cutoff if 70, as long as NAQ is high enough (32.5 NAQ), getting an interview is still possible. On the other hand, with a NAQ less than 20, getting the interview is difficult even AQ is 50. This will meet their goal: on-going commitment to fairness and equality

[Med2018Hopeful]

I don't think counting 75% GPA as 0 AQ is fair. I would suggest to calculate them in a simple way: if 100% GPA is considered 50 AQ, then 75% GPA is 37.5 AQ. Say the cutoff if 70, as long as NAQ is high enough (32.5 NAQ), getting an interview is still possible. On the other hand, with a NAQ less than 20, getting the interview is difficult even AQ is 50. This will meet their goal: on-going commitment to fairness and equality

 

100% GPA is impossible to get if you come from a school that does not use percentage based grades (ie. straight A+'s is a 95% from schools with A+ and straight A's at a school with no A+ is 92%) therefore why make a scale that is impossible to max out and favours students who go to certain schools? This would not make there process fair. I think that standardizing scores based on the applicant pool is the most fair approach. The linear trend that they have been using in the past was very favourable for students with high GPAs. But lets be honest I don't want a doctor who got through there undergrad with a 75% GPA. I know there may have been circumstances that account for this but UBC has the 1-year exclusion rule, to help students who may have had a crisis at some point in their undergrad.

 

Grade conversion chart: http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/

[mlgquickscopepro]

Just gave the admissions office a call as someone else did earlier so I could see if I could get more info. The woman on the phone informed that statistics will in fact come out next week but that admission invites/regrets will be sent out this week and next week.

[ubcubcubc]

Can anyone give the office a quick call to ask them if they're going to do it like last year, send all the regrets out then send invites, or will they mix invites and regrets this year

[jgal_22]

100% GPA is impossible to get if you come from a school that does not use percentage based grades (ie. straight A+'s is a 95% from schools with A+ and straight A's at a school with no A+ is 92%) therefore why make a scale that is impossible to max out and favours students who go to certain schools? This would not make there process fair. I think that standardizing scores based on the applicant pool is the most fair approach. The linear trend that they have been using in the past was very favourable for students with high GPAs. But lets be honest I don't want a doctor who got through there undergrad with a 75% GPA. I know there may have been circumstances that account for this but UBC has the 1-year exclusion rule, to help students who may have had a crisis at some point in their undergrad.

 

Grade conversion chart: http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/

 

Why would it matter if a doctor got a 75% in their undergrad?? I will admit that it is rare for someone with this average to get in but it can still be done which is evident by UBC's yearly admission reports. I think as long as you do well in medical school/ get a good residency placement, patients aren't going to care what you got in your undegrad, 7+ years before. Can you imagine a patient being like, "Oh wow, I see that you graduated with distinction from medical school and you got a prestigious residency placement. Oh...you got a 75% during your undegrad, 10 years ago...you must be a terrible doctor".

 

Can anyone give the office a quick call to ask them if they're going to do it like last year, send all the regrets out then send invites, or will they mix invites and regrets this year

 

Why don't you give them a call? It's a good suggestion

[StarStrike]

100% GPA is impossible to get if you come from a school that does not use percentage based grades (ie. straight A+'s is a 95% from schools with A+ and straight A's at a school with no A+ is 92%) therefore why make a scale that is impossible to max out and favours students who go to certain schools? This would not make there process fair. I think that standardizing scores based on the applicant pool is the most fair approach. The linear trend that they have been using in the past was very favourable for students with high GPAs. But lets be honest I don't want a doctor who got through there undergrad with a 75% GPA. I know there may have been circumstances that account for this but UBC has the 1-year exclusion rule, to help students who may have had a crisis at some point in their undergrad.

 

Grade conversion chart: http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/evaluation-criteria/

 

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree with your statement "but lets be honest I don't want a doctor who got through there undergrad with a 75% GPA".

 

There is A LOT more that goes into intelligence and competency than your undergraduate GPA. I've learned that myself as a recent pharmacy graduate and I've come to realize that the 'geniuses with 90% averages' that we put on a pedestal are not always the brightest and most capable of the bunch (but many definitely can be and are). I'm not even talking specifically about social skills or bedside manner either (though I've seen that as well), but clinical competence as well. On its own, GPA only shows that you're great at school and perhaps have mad cramming skills. It was a real shocker for me, since I personally bought into the whole GPA thing myself... it turns out that so many of those that you would put your trust into aren't actually the most competent.

[ubcubcubc]

Why would it matter if a doctor got a 75% in their undergrad?? I will admit that it is rare for someone with this average to get in but it can still be done which is evident by UBC's yearly admission reports. I think as long as you do really well in medical school/ get a good residency placement, patients aren't going to care what you got in your undegrad (7+ years ago).

 

 

 

Why don't you give them a call? It's a good suggestion

 

too nervous haha

[jgal_22]

too nervous haha

 

Haha I will do it now

 

Edit: I just phoned UBC admissions, and asked about the order that rejection and invite emails will be coming in. I also asked if they will be sent out like last year. The person just said that "both invite and rejection emails will be sent out sometime this week and next week". So sounds like there is no order but with UBC, you can never be too sure.

[ubcubcubc]

Haha I will do it now

 

Edit: I just phoned UBC admissions, and asked about the order that rejection and invite emails will be coming in. I also asked if they will be sent out like last year. The person just said that "both invite and rejection emails will be sent out sometime this week and next week". So sounds like there is no order but with UBC, you can never be too sure.

 

Thanks. I don't understand why they have to be so cryptic about it. Just send it all out on one day, it's not that hard!!!

[jgal_22]

Thanks. I don't understand why they have to be so cryptic about it. Just send it all out on one day, it's not that hard!!!

 

I know! It's like they want us to suffer slowly or something...

[mlgquickscopepro]

Anyone here meet the early deadline? We can use that to gauge progress

[Med2018Hopeful]

Why would it matter if a doctor got a 75% in their undergrad?? I will admit that it is rare for someone with this average to get in but it can still be done which is evident by UBC's yearly admission reports. I think as long as you do well in medical school/ get a good residency placement, patients aren't going to care what you got in your undegrad, 7+ years before. Can you imagine a patient being like, "Oh wow, I see that you graduated with distinction from medical school and you got a prestigious residency placement. Oh...you got a 75% during your undegrad, 10 years ago...you must be a terrible doctor".

 

I'm not saying that Undergrad GPA is more important than how you do in medical school but it is obviously an important criteria to consider in applicants to medicine. For example, when starting an undergraduate degree in science most of the students are "pre-med". however they quickly realize that they are not willing to put in the hours to get the grades necessary to get in. I have seen this with many of my friends who would likely make good doctors. But if you want it enough you will put in the time and effort to get the GPA. Let's be honest getting good grades isnt about how smart you are (however being a natural critical thinker can help) it is about how much effort and sacrifice you are willing to put in. I have spent countless all nighters cramming in order to get the grades I need and my friends who are also "pre-med" don't put in the same amount of effort and don't get the grades. Its not about being a great Crammer. We all forget things in time, hell if I tried to write an exam from some of my previous courses, I would probably do horribly on some of them.

 

I am not trying to be cocky or arrogant about this but in my opinion if you want to get into medicine badly enough you will put in the time and effort to get the grades. I feel that if you have a 75% GPA you have not put in the effort and you are not truly devoted to becoming a doctor. Obviously this is a huge generalization but in most cases I believe this is the case. Some of the best doctors may be the ones who have a 75% GPA but if we don't use GPA as a criteria I think that the whole thing becomes really wishy washy.