Thoughts on the written component of the interview?

[naama]

Just wondering what people are thinking about this. Do you think they are just collecting data or using this to evaluate applicants? What is the primary goal? 

[nice]

.

[Olaf]

I'm pretty sure the written component is pass/fail and is meant to evaluate your ability to comprehend a writing piece and then communicate that information back to someone in a summary. 

[Neurophilic]

Interesting how a 129 in CARS isn't enough to demonstrate that you can communicate with reading/writing.

[Neunundneunzig]

The ability to create a clear, concise, and objective summary of a large amount of complex information is an important skill for a physician in any field. Perhaps Western just doesn't think that its MCAT and GPA cutoffs effectively evaluate this skill? The CARS cutoff might assess this to a degree, but I could certainly entertain an argument that "understanding" as evaluated on the MCAT, and "being understood" as evaluated in such a writing sample are distinct skills.

How is it scored? And how important is your score on getting into Western post-interview? I'm not sure anyone can tell you for certain, but I would probably take it seriously if I was an applicant; this is the third year they've used the written component and it's likely no small feat to get all of them marked, so I can't imagine they'd keep it up if the first two years didn't distinguish candidates from one another in some meaningful way.

[Neurophilic]

You can administer any test and candidates will be distinguished from one another simply due to a distribution of scores. However, test validity and reliability are a seperate matter which need to be found with data. Without validity the test isn't measuring what its intended for and without reliability the test simply requires a stroke of luck. I'm especially skeptical as to its validity given the lack of data. If they are having students do the test in order to gather data and not use it in the admission process, good for them. It may potentially be of use some day. On the other hand, if they're using it for admissions, I'm not a fan to say the least. 

[Neunundneunzig]

There's a lack of public data, certainly, but Western is likely tracking the academic performance of the 350+ students in their program who have already completed the written component. And after two years, I don't think they would continue to use it if early returns didn't suggest to them that it could be a meaningful discriminator among candidates. To my knowledge, volunteers have never been sought to assess these writing samples so someone is likely being paid to do so, and that seems to be too expensive an endeavour to maintain if the sample were to only predict marginal improvement in whatever it is that Western is selecting for. Is the methodology completely valid and reliable? Probably not, but remember that Western uses a panel interview as its main selection tool despite evidence of its poor predictive value for future performance (see also), and evidence that the MMI is both a more reliable evaluation tool and a better predictor of success on licensing exams.

My advice is, if you're interviewing, just don't be flippant about it. There's enough info about the contents of the written component that you can prepare for it, and it might be worth your time to practice and get some feedback on a sample or two if you aren't regularly required to produce effective writing in your academic program, occupation, or ECs.