What Are My Chances Considering Last Year's Scores

[chronicconic]

Hi everyone.

 

I'd be interested to hear what you guys think my chances of acceptance this year would be, considering the scores I received last year. The number in parentheses refers to the average score of those who offered a spot last year.

 

cGPA: 3.91 (avg = 3.92)

Personal Activities: 7.00 (avg = 10.00)

MCAT: 10.67 (avg = 11.27)

Interview: 10.71 (avg = 22.02)

 

Assuming I do much better on the interview this year, what do you think my chances are if all my scores were below average?

[Thermophilus]

I believe the obvious answer is that if your interview is sufficiently above average to mitigate the below average totals in other areas you stand an excellent chance.  

 

Nail that interview! (Easier said than done am I right?) 

 

Also, how did you do on the 2015 MCAT, was it a similar percentile average to your 10.67?

[chronicconic]

Also, how did you do on the 2015 MCAT, was it a similar percentile average to your 10.67?

 

The percentile scores were exactly the same this year  . I don't think I'll be able to nail the interviews, but I will improve my scores at the very least.

[Premed23]

Hi everyone.

 

I'd be interested to hear what you guys think my chances of acceptance this year would be, considering the scores I received last year. The number in parentheses refers to the average score of those who offered a spot last year.

 

cGPA: 3.91 (avg = 3.92)

Personal Activities: 7.00 (avg = 10.00)

MCAT: 10.67 (avg = 11.27)

Interview: 10.71 (avg = 22.02)

 

Assuming I do much better on the interview this year, what do you think my chances are if all my scores were below average?

 

I suppose it would depend on if you have considerably improved your cGPA or personal activities. 

[GH0ST]

Going to echo the same sentiments as @Thermophilus,

 

Your GPA is fine (heck it's significantly better than mine at 3.75).

 

Your MCAT is fine (mine was 10.33)

 

Your ECs, barring significant improvement in one year, is very weak from those numbers.

 

You don't need me to say how that interview went.

 

To feel more comfortable I say a rule of thumb is to feel good in two of the three criteria (GPA, MCAT, ECs), you might be able to get away with one of the three but it's unnerving to say the least.

 

Assuming you get an II, you have to absolutely decimate the interview, aiming for top scores in every station. That said it is possible (I mean against considerable odds I still made it somehow).

 

- G

[chronicconic]

Thanks for your feedback everyone. Looks like I'll have to prepare for the possibility of rejection again 

[GH0ST]

Thanks for your feedback everyone. Looks like I'll have to prepare for the possibility of rejection again 

 

Well that sounds quite defeatist ....

 

You had a year to work on your interview skills.... what have you been doing then to better yourself this time around?

 

- G

[TheApiarist]

I'm just curious, do you know why exactly your interview score is so far below the average?

[chronicconic]

Well that sounds quite defeatist ....

 

You had a year to work on your interview skills.... what have you been doing then to better yourself this time around?

 

- G

 

I've refined my interview skills, but I don't see myself as an exceptional interviewee; I'd see myself as perhaps average.

 

 

I'm just curious, do you know why exactly your interview score is so far below the average?

 

I have multiple hunches, but most likely poor presentation skills and a lack of contemplation. My answers were very one-sided.

[UCpls<3]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know how your ECs will be evaluated? What's the criteria? I felt like it was difficult to describe my activities in full detail given the character limits..

[AHSTemp]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know how your ECs will be evaluated? What's the criteria? I felt like it was difficult to describe my activities in full detail given the character limits..

 

Although I can't say for sure, I'm under the impression that UofA will look more at the "quality" of the activities, compared to UofC which looks at what you got out of the activity. Based on personal experience I felt like over the years the activities/awards/research I've been involved in have been getting better, and it is reflected in my scores. The character limits UofA gives are way too short for anything other than a quick description of the activities, so I'm not sure what else they could be basing their scores on.

[UCpls<3]

Although I can't say for sure, I'm under the impression that UofA will look more at the "quality" of the activities, compared to UofC which looks at what you got out of the activity. Based on personal experience I felt like over the years the activities/awards/research I've been involved in have been getting better, and it is reflected in my scores. The character limits UofA gives are way too short for anything other than a quick description of the activities, so I'm not sure what else they could be basing their scores on.

So it's like a subjective judgement of how "impressive" your activities are? 

[TheApiarist]

So it's like a subjective judgement of how "impressive" your activities are?

From what I've heard, UofA considers the hours and the length of involvement to be extremely important factors.

[Premed23]

From what I've heard, UofA considers the hours and the length of involvement to be extremely important factors.

 

Hmm, that definitely isn't going to adequately capture the impact of EVERY activity...

[UCpls<3]

Hmm, that definitely isn't going to adequately capture the impact of EVERY activity...

Well everything in this forum is hearsay, so don't take it too seriously    

[GH0ST]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know how your ECs will be evaluated? What's the criteria? I felt like it was difficult to describe my activities in full detail given the character limits..

 

Although I can't say for sure, I'm under the impression that UofA will look more at the "quality" of the activities, compared to UofC which looks at what you got out of the activity. Based on personal experience I felt like over the years the activities/awards/research I've been involved in have been getting better, and it is reflected in my scores. The character limits UofA gives are way too short for anything other than a quick description of the activities, so I'm not sure what else they could be basing their scores on.

 

So it's like a subjective judgement of how "impressive" your activities are? 

 

From what I've heard, UofA considers the hours and the length of involvement to be extremely important factors.

 

Hmm, that definitely isn't going to adequately capture the impact of EVERY activity...

 

For all previously rejected applicants, there is an optional review process usually during July that allows applicants to request a meeting with someone in the UME admissions to go over your application and look for improvements. This I found was by far the most informative and helpful in guiding one towards future success and is not offered at many places. I am uncertain if they still offer this, but when I went I found it to be very useful. 

 

Based on the last time I went in 2013 (though I doubt it will change), the ECs for every section is ranked 0 to 4 and the scores are then converted to X / 30%. The score you see (10.00) is not converted but still conveys the same idea. If I recall there are five individual sections (awards, employment, volunteering, leadership, and diversity of experience). 

 

0 is below average and few people get this

1 is what they'd generally expect out of any average person

2 is what they'd generally expect from someone competitive 

3 is what they'd generally expect from someone exceptional and above the competition

4 is almost never given, and only when it's incredibly exceptional (ex. olympian) 

 

Two reviewers look at your ECs and give you a score (0 - 4). These scores are averaged (this is how some can get #.5 in a category). If the score between interviewers deviate > 1, they will review it again and discuss it amongst each other before reaching a consensus. For matriculants to average 10.00, they'd need to average 2 per section (or have a weaker section to be made up by an exceptional alternative section). Most applicants generally get 1 to 2 and it's marked harshly. This method contributes to the difficulty of getting high points via ECs alone. 

 

Note that this is an average, which means lower GPA/MCAT applicants need a significantly greater EC score, while a lower EC can be relatively easier to make up with both the MCAT and GPA.... this is another reason why GPA/MCAT is more predominant at the UofA, setting aside the competitiveness of the applicant pool. 

 

EDIT: Please don't take this in the most literal sense as things may have changed (especially the grading criteria)... but this gives you at least some idea of how it used to be done. 

 

 

- G 

[UCpls<3]

For all previously rejected applicants, there is an optional review process usually during July that allows applicants to request a meeting with someone in the UME admissions to go over your application and look for improvements. This I found was by far the most informative and helpful in guiding one towards future success and is not offered at many places. I am uncertain if they still offer this, but when I went I found it to be very useful. 

 

Based on the last time I went in 2013 (though I doubt it will change), the ECs for every section is ranked 0 to 4 and the scores are then converted to X / 30%. The score you see (10.00) is not converted but still conveys the same idea. If I recall there are five individual sections (awards, employment, volunteering, leadership, and diversity of experience). 

 

0 is awful and few people get this

1 is what they'd generally expect out of any average person

2 is what they'd generally expect from someone competitive 

3 is what they'd generally expect from someone exceptional and above the competition

4 is almost never given, and only when it's incredibly exceptional (ex. olympian) 

 

Two reviewers look at your ECs and give you a score (0 - 4). These scores are averaged (this is how some can get #.5 in a category). If the score between interviewers deviate > 1, they will review it again and discuss it amongst each other before reaching a consensus. For matriculants to average 10.00, they'd need to average 2 per section (or have a weaker section to be made up by an exceptional alternative section). Most applicants generally get 1 to 2 and it's marked harshly. This method contributes to the difficulty of getting high points via ECs alone. 

 

Note that this is an average, which means lower GPA/MCAT applicants need a significantly greater EC score, while a lower EC can be relatively easier to make up with both the MCAT and GPA.... this is another reason why GPA/MCAT is more predominant at the UofA, setting aside the competitiveness of the applicant pool. 

 

EDIT: Please don't take this in the most literal sense as things may have changed (especially the grading criteria)... but this gives you at least some idea of how it used to be done. 

 

 

- G 

No wonder the spread is often so low. This is really informative

 

Edit: I'm surprised they use raw scores instead of z-score like Ucalgary 

Edit2: Or is it actually converted to z-scores..?

[GH0ST]

No wonder the spread is often so low. This is really informative

 

Edit: I'm surprised they use raw scores instead of z-score like Ucalgary 

Edit2: Or is it actually converted to z-scores..?

 

Does it really matter? your overall ranking relative to others around you won't change. 

 

- G 

[UCpls<3]

Does it really matter? your overall ranking relative to others around you won't change. 

 

- G 

 

Well if it's raw scores most people would receive a score somewhere in the middle of the range (thus what distinguishes one applicant from another would mostly be MCAT/GPA), whereas if it's z-score the spread would be much larger (and ECs would thus have a greater influence on the difference between everyone's scores). 

[Friendly Magpie]

For all previously rejected applicants, there is an optional review process usually during July that allows applicants to request a meeting with someone in the UME admissions to go over your application and look for improvements. This I found was by far the most informative and helpful in guiding one towards future success and is not offered at many places. I am uncertain if they still offer this, but when I went I found it to be very useful. 

 

Based on the last time I went in 2013 (though I doubt it will change), the ECs for every section is ranked 0 to 4 and the scores are then converted to X / 30%. The score you see (10.00) is not converted but still conveys the same idea. If I recall there are five individual sections (awards, employment, volunteering, leadership, and diversity of experience). 

 

0 is awful and few people get this

1 is what they'd generally expect out of any average person

2 is what they'd generally expect from someone competitive 

3 is what they'd generally expect from someone exceptional and above the competition

4 is almost never given, and only when it's incredibly exceptional (ex. olympian) 

 

Two reviewers look at your ECs and give you a score (0 - 4). These scores are averaged (this is how some can get #.5 in a category). If the score between interviewers deviate > 1, they will review it again and discuss it amongst each other before reaching a consensus. For matriculants to average 10.00, they'd need to average 2 per section (or have a weaker section to be made up by an exceptional alternative section). Most applicants generally get 1 to 2 and it's marked harshly. This method contributes to the difficulty of getting high points via ECs alone. 

 

Note that this is an average, which means lower GPA/MCAT applicants need a significantly greater EC score, while a lower EC can be relatively easier to make up with both the MCAT and GPA.... this is another reason why GPA/MCAT is more predominant at the UofA, setting aside the competitiveness of the applicant pool. 

 

EDIT: Please don't take this in the most literal sense as things may have changed (especially the grading criteria)... but this gives you at least some idea of how it used to be done. 

 

 

- G 

 

 

Thanks Ghoststalker.   This is very informative.

 

For those of you that are interested, they still had the file review option last summer (so am assuming that they will do the same in the future). I went in and spoke to an advisor who was also able to tell me what my scores were in each category. 

 

To ChronicIconic, I think you have an excellent chance if you do well on the interview. Best of luck! 

[GH0ST]

Well if it's raw scores most people would receive a score somewhere in the middle of the range (thus what distinguishes one applicant from another would mostly be MCAT/GPA), whereas if it's z-score the spread would be much larger (and ECs would thus have a greater influence on the difference between everyone's scores). 

 

Once everything is converted to their respective proportions ........ it won't matter, especially true if the population sampled is distributed evenly.  

 

Someone that's 2 SD up vs getting the top 95% of scores.... when they put that together they'll still be at the top. 

 

My point is that regardless of what measures they use and how they use them... eventually people are all gonna be on the same boat..... you just gotta hope that you were enough to get on Noah's Ark. 

 

- G 

[chronicconic]

Thanks for your informative posts, as always, Ghost.

[cotedeazur]

Thanks Ghoststalker.   This is very informative.

 

For those of you that are interested, they still had the file review option last summer (so am assuming that they will do the same in the future). I went in and spoke to an advisor who was also able to tell me what my scores were in each category. 

 

To ChronicIconic, I think you have an excellent chance if you do well on the interview. Best of luck! 

Hey Friendly Magpie,

 

So they can actually tell you what your score is for each section? That's pretty awesome.

 

I kinda wish UofA can normalize the EC score like UBC, so people with strong EC can have comparable competitiveness with people with higher GPA.

[cotedeazur]

For all previously rejected applicants, there is an optional review process usually during July that allows applicants to request a meeting with someone in the UME admissions to go over your application and look for improvements. This I found was by far the most informative and helpful in guiding one towards future success and is not offered at many places. I am uncertain if they still offer this, but when I went I found it to be very useful. 

 

Based on the last time I went in 2013 (though I doubt it will change), the ECs for every section is ranked 0 to 4 and the scores are then converted to X / 30%. The score you see (10.00) is not converted but still conveys the same idea. If I recall there are five individual sections (awards, employment, volunteering, leadership, and diversity of experience). 

 

0 is awful and few people get this

1 is what they'd generally expect out of any average person

2 is what they'd generally expect from someone competitive 

3 is what they'd generally expect from someone exceptional and above the competition

4 is almost never given, and only when it's incredibly exceptional (ex. olympian) 

 

Two reviewers look at your ECs and give you a score (0 - 4). These scores are averaged (this is how some can get #.5 in a category). If the score between interviewers deviate > 1, they will review it again and discuss it amongst each other before reaching a consensus. For matriculants to average 10.00, they'd need to average 2 per section (or have a weaker section to be made up by an exceptional alternative section). Most applicants generally get 1 to 2 and it's marked harshly. This method contributes to the difficulty of getting high points via ECs alone. 

 

Note that this is an average, which means lower GPA/MCAT applicants need a significantly greater EC score, while a lower EC can be relatively easier to make up with both the MCAT and GPA.... this is another reason why GPA/MCAT is more predominant at the UofA, setting aside the competitiveness of the applicant pool. 

 

EDIT: Please don't take this in the most literal sense as things may have changed (especially the grading criteria)... but this gives you at least some idea of how it used to be done. 

 

 

- G 

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

I talked to UofA a few days ago, and was told different segments of EC are weighed differently (maybe they recently changed) but they can't share the specific details.

[GH0ST]

Thanks for sharing!

 

I talked to UofA a few days ago, and was told different segments of EC are weighed differently (maybe they recently changed) but they can't share the specific details.

 

That probably is true... I don't know how much it changed but the crux of the idea is the same... two interviewers give a score that they agree on .... pool together and boom there's the ranking list for ECs.

 

To be fair people with good ECs can compare with those with good GPA... it's just that good GPA is clearly distinguished whereas ECs are not ... this is also why banking on ECs to get in is too inconsistent vs grades... another reason why grades are king (not that I agree with it).

 

- G