Is the MSAR incorrect?

[LePepe]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Seems like the stats it gives for accepted applicants are the same that it gives for matriculants.

For example, look at Hofstra:

(MSAR)
Matriculant cGPA: 3.8
Matriculant sGPA: 3.7
Matriculant MCAT: 34

Accepted cGPA: 3.76
Accepted sGPA: 3.73
Accepted MCAT: 34

(Last year's clas profile: Meet Our Students - Admissions - Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine at Hofstra University)
GPA: 3.62
MCAT: 34

 

[ready2go2]

I think you're referring to the data for accepted applicants box, in which case you are comparing accepted applicants to matriculants. Not all applicants. Or did I misunderstand? For the Hofstra example the subscor s are slightly different between the two

 

[LePepe]

I think you're referring to the data for accepted applicants box, in which case you are comparing accepted applicants to matriculants. Not all applicants.

A far more egregious example is Georgetown:

(MSAR)
Matriculant cGPA: 3.8
Matriculant sGPA: 3.7
Matriculant MCAT: 33

Accepted cGPA: 3.75
Accepted sGPA: 3.72
Accepted MCAT: 33

(Class profile: )

cGPA: ?
sGPA: 3.57
MCAT: 30.9

In this case, the MSAR is pretty much useless

 

[Ismet]

The MSAR is copyrighted information that requires payment to access. Please do not post data that is not publicly accessible or screenshots of the MSAR screens.

 

[Chase K 13]

I noticed the same thing with a few schools I applied to. Specifically at the University of Louisville the MSAR shows a higher cGPA by 0.1 and a point higher on the MCAT when compared to the class profile data that UL provides on their own website. I would imagine the data provided by the school is more accurate?

 

[LePepe]

MSAR is median data
Hofstra is average data

Ok, still doesn't change the fact that the matriculant/accepted data is identical.

 

[LePepe]

The MSAR is copyrighted information that requires payment to access. Please do not post data that is not publicly accessible or screenshots of the MSAR screens.

Sorry. I deleted the screenshot. Please let me know if anything else needs to be changed.

 

[Ismet]

Sorry. I deleted the screenshot. Please let me know if anything else needs to be changed.

Any data that is not publicly accessible. If the above GPAs and MCAT scores are only found on MSAR and not on a public site somewhere, it cannot be reproduced outside of the MSAR. MSAR® Terms and Conditions

 

[LePepe]

I am fully perplexed by your statement. I would fully expect the accepted and the matriculant to be identical.

Don't know why you would think that - especially when the actual entering class data from Georgetown shows a 4 point LePepe (LizzyM) swing from accepted data (MSAR) to matriculant data (class profile on website)

 

[Lawpy]

A far more egregious example is Georgetown:

And yet another reason why applicants should avoid Georgetown. @Jalby would agree.

 

[wysdoc]

I am fully perplexed by your statement. I would fully expect the accepted and the matriculant to be identical.

Because some students have multiple offers, not all who are accepted matriculate. I think this could account for the slight difference in figures.

 

[libertyyne]

I looked at the matriculant vs acceptee data a while back, there was roughly a LizzyM 2 point difference for most schools.

 

[libertyyne]

I would trust msar vs school websites.

 

[libertyyne]

What am I not following from this discussion?

In the MSAR Hofstra data, which is median, matriculant and accepted are identical, which is fully expected. Most accepted will matriculate so we would expect them to be close. Since medical school acceptees are in the upper range (with 4.0 being the limit), median data will be always be "high".

Hofstra uses average data. So if you have 10% of the class with outlying lower GPA, it will affect the average to a much higher degree than what a median would show.

As I said, I am perplexed here

For most schools the Matriculant data is not insignificantly different than the acceptee data. UVA for example has an acceptance median of 36 vs a matriculant median of 34

 

[Lawpy]

I am fully perplexed by your statement. I would fully expect the accepted and the matriculant to be identical.

What am I not following from this discussion?

In the MSAR Hofstra data, which is median, matriculant and accepted are identical, which is fully expected. Most accepted will matriculate so we would expect them to be close. Since medical school acceptees are in the upper range (with 4.0 being the limit), median data will be always be "high".

Hofstra uses average data. So if you have 10% of the class with outlying lower GPA, it will affect the average to a much higher degree than what a median would show.

As I said, I am perplexed here

For most schools the Matriculant data is insignificantly different than the acceptee data. UVA for example has an acceptance median of 36 vs a matriculant median of 34

wait confused. why would matriculant stats matter if accepted stats are provided? accepted stats are a better indicator for assessing the selectivity of schools, so they are usually about the same if not greater than matriculant stats.

and accepted stats provide a good estimation for the academic requirements needed to get accepted to that school in the first place.

 

[md-2020]

Because many students have multiple offers, a minority of those who are accepted matriculate. This accounts for the slight difference in figures.

FTFY.

Does any school even have a majority yield? I suppose some of the more out-of-the-way state unis at most?

Hofstra having identical data between acceptees/matriculants I'd chalk down to either 1. admissions office not caring to differentiate for yield, or 2. consciously choosing to obfuscate data for some ranking/competitive advantage. Perhaps their matriculants are significantly less competitive than acceptees, given the proportion of highly competitive applications that seem to use Hofstra as a safety.

 

[libertyyne]

wait confused. why would matriculant stats matter if accepted stats are provided? accepted stats are a better indicator for assessing the selectivity of schools, so they are usually about the same if not greater than matriculant stats.

I feel like matriculant stats speak a better story of odds after WL and all other shenanigans are completed.

 

[libertyyne]

FTFY.

Does any school even have a majority yield? I suppose some of the more out-of-the-way state unis at most?

Hofstra having identical data between acceptees/matriculants I'd chalk down to either 1. admissions office not caring to differentiate for yield, or 2. consciously choosing to obfuscate data for some ranking/competitive advantage. Perhaps their matriculants are significantly less competitive than acceptees, given the proportion of highly competitive applications that seem to use Hofstra as a safety.

I would assume MSAR data is generated from amcas application information rather then self reporting performed by schools. If that is the case MSAR data is the truth, and website data is not standardized.

 

[cactusman]

FTFY.

Does any school even have a majority yield? I suppose some of the more out-of-the-way state unis at most?

Hofstra having identical data between acceptees/matriculants I'd chalk down to either 1. admissions office not caring to differentiate for yield, or 2. consciously choosing to obfuscate data for some ranking/competitive advantage. Perhaps their matriculants are significantly less competitive than acceptees, given the proportion of highly competitive applications that seem to use Hofstra as a safety.

Yes. The highest public is UKansas (85.1%) and the highest private is HMS (76.1%).

 

[Lawpy]

I feel like matriculant stats speak a better story of odds after WL and all other shenanigans are completed.

? waitlists may suggest schools weren't interested enough in those applicants to accept them immediately, so including them in the stats would underestimate the selectivity.

 

[libertyyne]

? waitlists may suggest schools weren't interested enough in those applicants to accept them immediately, so including them in the stats would underestimate the selectivity.

Yes, yes, but at the end of the day the school is interested enough to accept them. Thus the Matriculant data speaking to the actual composition of the class and selectivity of the school. A school could send acceptances to every 3.7, 520 plus and be a school that none of those people want to attend, it would still have inflated acceptee stats compared to the actual matriculants that end up there with 3.5 , 512. I think there was a school that had a 4 point difference in lizzyMs between matriculant and acceptee.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, yes, but at the end of the day the school is interested enough to accept them. Thus the Matriculant data speaking to the actual composition of the class and selectivity of the school. A school could send acceptances to every 3.7, 520 plus and be a school that none of those people want to attend, it would still have inflated acceptee stats compared to the actual matriculants that end up there with 3.5 , 512. I think there was a school that had a 4 point difference in lizzyMs between matriculant and acceptee.

i was just thinking that matching or surpassing the accepted stats would help maximize odds of getting interviewed and admitted at that school. whereas focusing on matriculant stats would suggest it's possible to get interviewed there but at possibly lower chance of being accepted. it's not an absolute rule since some schools yield protect against very competitive applicants.

i'm just waiting eagerly for the new MSAR to come out soon.

 

[Lucca]

FTFY.

Does any school even have a majority yield? I suppose some of the more out-of-the-way state unis at most?

Hofstra having identical data between acceptees/matriculants I'd chalk down to either 1. admissions office not caring to differentiate for yield, or 2. consciously choosing to obfuscate data for some ranking/competitive advantage. Perhaps their matriculants are significantly less competitive than acceptees, given the proportion of highly competitive applications that seem to use Hofstra as a safety.

Yes, some schools do have a majority yield. Source: USNWR.

 

[GapLustrum]

Nvm: Found it ("Selection factors")

 

[libertyyne]

.;

 

[freak7]

.;

Ok well now I'm the one who is fully perplexed

 

[Astra]

.;

Exactly! Finally, someone who gets it

 

[LePepe]

Any data that is not publicly accessible. If the above GPAs and MCAT scores are only found on MSAR and not on a public site somewhere, it cannot be reproduced outside of the MSAR. MSAR® Terms and Conditions

Ok. They're also on startclass, so I think it's ok? Let me know if not.