Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Interview Invites & Regrets (2015/2016 App. Cycle)


Recommended Posts

as far as the work thing is concerned i can tell you it doesn't weigh in heavily.

I have worked full time since i was 15 and had two jobs while going to school (40 hours a week most of the time).

My NAQ to start even with volunteering in africa etc. was only an 18.

I wish work experience weighed in more heavily, but it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 426
  • Created
  • Last Reply

as far as the work thing is concerned i can tell you it doesn't weigh in heavily.

I have worked full time since i was 15 and had two jobs while going to school (40 hours a week most of the time).

My NAQ to start even with volunteering in africa etc. was only an 18.

I wish work experience weighed in more heavily, but it doesn't.

Perhaps the type of employment is taken into consideration when determining how heavily it will influence your NAQ. For example, a managerial type job, or a job that is deeply rooted in health care may influence the admissions committee more than other jobs. This wouldnt be any different than how they evaluate volunteer experiences, although I may be incorrect in this assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as the work thing is concerned i can tell you it doesn't weigh in heavily.

I have worked full time since i was 15 and had two jobs while going to school (40 hours a week most of the time).

My NAQ to start even with volunteering in africa etc. was only an 18.

I wish work experience weighed in more heavily, but it doesn't.

Again, it depends on what types of jobs and the experiences you had as well, and of course how you portray it.

 

I also worked since 15 and had countless entries in the work experience section last year, and scored very high on NAQ. 

 

Please do not spread false information that work experience is not weighted heavily, AFAIK it is weighted equally. Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as many non-trads in our class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the type of employment is taken into consideration when determining how heavily it will influence your NAQ. For example, a managerial type job, or a job that is deeply rooted in health care may influence the admissions committee more than other jobs. This wouldnt be any different than how they evaluate volunteer experiences, although I may be incorrect in this assumption.

This is a better line of thinking.

 

Whatever it is, job, volunteering, EC, if it fits the characterstics of what they are looking for - you will get points.

 

If you're simply just passively volunteering and racking up hours, you arent going to get far. You need to be a leader, expand your level of responsibilities and reach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a better line of thinking.

 

Whatever it is, job, volunteering, EC, if it fits the characterstics of what they are looking for - you will get points.

 

If you're simply just passively volunteering and racking up hours, you arent going to get far. You need to be a leader, expand your level of responsibilities and reach.

Absolutely! I totally agree with this. Some people may have good hours, which may result in a good score for the quantitative portion. However, the description is a key player in each entry (the qualitative portion). Those who are progressively getting better in each of their activities will have a better qualitative grade.

 

What I mean by progression is something like the following:

 

You start volunteering at some hospital, let's say. Maybe after some time, you expand the scope of your responsibilities. For example, you turn out to be the volunteer trainer, responsible for training other volunteers. And perhaps the next year after, you help out with the fundraisers to help your hospital. This is what progression is. Your hard work will show the admissions team that you are a committed and dedicated individual, who is a passionate leader always wanting to help and progress for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely! I totally agree with this. Some people may have good hours, which may result in a good score for the quantitative portion. However, the description is a key player in each entry (the qualitative portion). Those who are progressively getting better in each of their activities will have a better qualitative grade.

 

What I mean by progression is something like the following:

 

You start volunteering at some hospital, let's say. Maybe after some time, you expand the scope of your responsibilities. For example, you turn out to be the volunteer trainer, responsible for training other volunteers. And perhaps the next year after, you help out with the fundraisers to help your hospital. This is what progression is. Your hard work will show the admissions team that you are a committed and dedicated individual, who is a passionate leader always wanting to help and progress for the better.

Yes. People I talk to always seem surprised when they have 400 hours attending the desk or hospital welcome entrance and think that is enough to score well on NAQ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this info will be useful to someone applying next year!

 

TIME STAMP: 3:45 PM December 7

Interview Invite: Regret

Early/Regular Deadline: Regular

Interview Date: N/A

GPA: 83.65%

AGPA (if applicable): 84.36%

MCAT: 11 PS/ 8VR/ 11BS

ECs: Undergrad club exec for a few years, some itnernational exchange, 2 years of research (co-op and honours), volunteering with cancer patients, etc

Year: Bachelor's completed

Geography: IP

NAQ (if applicable): 27.49

AQ (if applicable): 22.84

 

I applied last year as well with an aGPA of 84.05% but my AQ dropped slightly from 23.23. Ah well, that's what the bell curve will do to you. See you again next year!

Thanks for sharing! good luck :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly if this were true, Id say UBCs evaluation criteria is a little shortsighted. 

 

If they split the NAQ up what would it be split up into? Likely Research, Volunteer, Work, and Leisure (sport, personal interests, ect). If this is also true then, for example (Im going to make numbers up here), if research gets 10 points maximally, volunteering gets 15 points max, work gets 15, and leisure gets the remaining 10, then someone who must work to make ends meet, and cannot volunteer because they dont have the time, would be severely disadvantaged since they would likely maximally score on work but minimally score on Volunteering - and this would translate to a less-than-optimal NAQ score, probably. So I would say that would be pretty unfair. 

 

And although the system may not (and I hope it doesnt) run by the above exact structure, it is possible a similar system is in place. Allocating specific points to specific categories in the NAQ section runs the risk of widening the crack for some nontypical applicants to fall into. To this end, they would be indadvertedly narrowing their classes' diversity profile. I sure hope that is not the case.  

 

They've already split the NAQ into very discrete sections: research, awards, leadership, volunteering, capacity to work with others, diversity of experience, high achievement. It's completely reasonable, and pretty likely, that each section has a set number of points. They clearly say that any work experience is evalulated using the critiera of the above sections, which means that they probably slot them in there somewhere to determine its value. If you displayed capacity to work with others in a work experience, you'll get the points for it, even if you didn't have time to volunteer somewhere to do that.

 

You may be right about diversity, which they seem to be addressing by removing pre-req requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the type of employment is taken into consideration when determining how heavily it will influence your NAQ. For example, a managerial type job, or a job that is deeply rooted in health care may influence the admissions committee more than other jobs. This wouldnt be any different than how they evaluate volunteer experiences, although I may be incorrect in this assumption.

 

I think you are right, it is just very hard to get work experience where you are really working toward one of the evaluation areas. For some people they have connections into healthcare for some of us this isn't the case.

Just IMO i think it is much easier to find volunteer experiences where you are exhibiting leadership than it is to find a managerial type job, and the same goes for the other areas as well.

 

 

Again, it depends on what types of jobs and the experiences you had as well, and of course how you portray it.

 

I also worked since 15 and had countless entries in the work experience section last year, and scored very high on NAQ. 

 

Please do not spread false information that work experience is not weighted heavily, AFAIK it is weighted equally. Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as many non-trads in our class.

 

 

Well i don't mean to spread false assumptions but just because you scored a high NAQ doesn't mean that it came from your work experience per se. Did you have really strong ECs?

I don't mean that it isn't weighted at all or even equally, just that the majority of jobs (at least up here in the north) don't tend to be ones that lend themselves toward one of the five areas they are looking for.

I think that someone who works let's say at a coffee shop or a department store or in a warehouse probably won't end up with the same NAQ score as someone who volunteers with aimhi or BC cancer agency etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

My speculation is UBC evaluates work, life, volunteer, travel, sport and all other experience in all 5 sections: service ethic, leadership, capacity to work with others, diversity, high achievement. Maybe 10 each section, and add them together. The overall score will be standardized against the whole applicants pool.

 

One of the adcom member once told me: they don't like applicant to be too obvious for nothing but med school, like applicant with no other volunteering / activities at all but only hospital volunteering... (not sure how I can articulate this better...)

 

 

 

They've already split the NAQ into very discrete sections: research, awards, leadership, volunteering, capacity to work with others, diversity of experience, high achievement. It's completely reasonable, and pretty likely, that each section has a set number of points. They clearly say that any work experience is evalulated using the critiera of the above sections, which means that they probably slot them in there somewhere to determine its value. If you displayed capacity to work with others in a work experience, you'll get the points for it, even if you didn't have time to volunteer somewhere to do that.

 

You may be right about diversity, which they seem to be addressing by removing pre-req requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've already split the NAQ into very discrete sections: research, awards, leadership, volunteering, capacity to work with others, diversity of experience, high achievement. It's completely reasonable, and pretty likely, that each section has a set number of points. They clearly say that any work experience is evalulated using the critiera of the above sections, which means that they probably slot them in there somewhere to determine its value. If you displayed capacity to work with others in a work experience, you'll get the points for it, even if you didn't have time to volunteer somewhere to do that.

 

You may be right about diversity, which they seem to be addressing by removing pre-req requirements.

 

True, but if it were the case that they slot work experience into volunteer categories, why not have applicants categorize work experience in the first place? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is how it works.

 

Your Total File Review (TFR) is divided into two categories equally, Academic Qualities (AQ) and Non-Academic Qualities (NAQ); 50% AQ and 50% NAQ. These are basics -- we all know this.

 

I believe that AQ consists of only your GPA or Adjusted GPA (AGPA) if applicable. The reason I say this is because, the admissions team tell us that "if you're GPA/AGPA in the system is correct, than your AQ score is correct." This illustrates that AQ is entirely based on your grades. In other words, 50% of your TFR is solely based on your grades.

 

The NAQ consists of non-academic activities, hence the name. This means that your NAQ score consists of everything but the academic qualities, which is your GPA. As a result, all your non-academic activities, research, awards, and employment fall into your NAQ evaluation.

 

Later tonight, I will post my thoughts on how re-applicants can improve their NAQ for future applications. Stay tuned folks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...