New MSAR Preview

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Overthink said:
PSA: I realized a way to interpret the new "box plots" for a better Gestalt

Since all of the markers (10th, 25th, median, 75th, 90th) are all firm, by looking at these distributions, you can immediately get a sense where scores are concentrated. Let's take this example:

View attachment 218227

Let's compare the 25th-50th and 50th-75th. Both of these regions, by definition, have the same number of students. The 515-518 being smaller indicates there is a greater concentration of students there. By contrast, there same number of students are distributed over the 518-522 range.

Compare that plot to this one:

View attachment 218228

As you can see, a ton of students are concentrated in the 515-517 range. The same number are distributed over the broader 517-520 box. Fewer are distributed very broadly over the 510-515 range.

Tl;dr: Thin sections of the box plots indicate where many students are concentrated. Long stretches indicates there are students distributed broadly and are not the best regions to be in.
Click to expand...
Lawper said:
Could you be overthinking this? 😉
Click to expand...
Isn't that how box plots have always worked?
 
I don't have anything to add about box plots; however, I'm not a fan of the new format - it makes accessing certain information a lot harder (ie, I don't want to have to scroll forever to just see how many people applied...).
 
Which is more important when considering where to apply, accepted or matriculant? They seem to differ quite a bit at many schools..

Did schools set their sights too high with the applicants they wanted this cycle?
 
Why did they remove the breakdown by ethnicity? Kind of curious what countries my classmates are from.
 
If you look at the national statistics (and this holds true for the few schools Ive looked at) it looks like there was a wider spread in accepted applicants for the CARS and Psych/Soc sections.

So AAMC made us take a test that is nearly twice as long in total time, entirely revamped, with fewer prep materials, to take new sections that dont matter as much all the while the accepted MCAT distributions for most schools remain unchanged.
 
So should we still be shooting for schools where our MCAT and GPA fall within the 10th-90th percentile? UCLA surprised me the most, but a lot of schools have a very large distribution in their MCAT. I think UCLA was 500-520ish.
 
cke11 said:
So should we still be shooting for schools where our MCAT and GPA fall within the 10th-90th percentile? UCLA surprised me the most, but a lot of schools have a very large distribution in their MCAT. I think UCLA was 500-520ish.
Click to expand...

I think median and quartiles would be a better way to gauge where you fall on the specturm. Anyone at the fringes is likely going to be URM or have an incredible story/fit so for most places/people I wouldnt expect to be there.
 
If you are ORM and lack a very unique narrative, I'd be aiming for the IQR rather than the 10-90.

Well, actually being top quartile would be good. So really I'd be aiming for schools where you are at least above the 25th.
 
Lawper said:
@LizzyM now that the new MSAR is out, could you take a look and see whether a new LizzyM score formula is needed? One suggested formula for new MCAT is:

score = 10 * (GPA + 2) + (MCAT - 500)

We'll get something like this:

Old 76 (i.e. 3.8/38 or 3.9/37) is new 80. This is generally the number to shoot for for top schools.

Old 73 (i.e. 3.8/35 or 3.9/34) is new 75. This is generally a good number for mid tiers while possibly being competitive for some top tiers.

Old 70 (i.e. 3.7/33 or 3.9/31) is new 70. This is generally where a "competitive" applicant for med school falls around.

Old 67 (i.e. 3.6/31 or 3.7/30) is new 65. This is around the accepted applicant median.

Old 65 (i.e. 3.6/29 or 3.7/28) is new 60. This is highly competitive for DOs and marginal for MD.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, a 4.0/524 ends up being
10*(4+2)+(524-500)
60+24=84
So at the top end, the GPA contributes 5/7th of the total score whereas with the old LizzyM, the distribution of the two were closer to 50-50.
At the lower end
3.5/510
55+10 = 65. Again, the GPA contributes even more to the overall score 85%.

I'm feeling like this skews too much toward GPA.
 
The conversion to old scores is quick, clean and appears to hold up very very well with the new MSAR medians. Treating 3.7/520 as 3.7/37 -> LizzyM 74 is the easiest thing to do, imho.

It gets a little messy around 39-41 / 523-525ish, but if you're in the 100th percentile it gets moot anyways, and there are only a few schools that even range that high.
 
How about we use the formula =(GPA*10)+(MCAT-472).

It skews a bit towards MCAT, but then again most of the stratospheric (78+) LizzyM scores were weighted more towards MCAT anyways.

We'll need a new score system soon because old MCAT scores will cease to be relevant within a year or two.
 
LizzyM said:
Well, a 4.0/524 ends up being
10*(4+2)+(524-500)
60+24=84
So at the top end, the GPA contributes 5/7th of the total score whereas with the old LizzyM, the distribution of the two were closer to 50-50.
At the lower end
3.5/510
55+10 = 65. Again, the GPA contributes even more to the overall score 85%.

I'm feeling like this skews too much toward GPA.
Click to expand...
efle said:
The conversion to old scores is quick, clean and appears to hold up very very well with the new MSAR medians. Treating 3.7/520 as 3.7/37 -> LizzyM 74 is the easiest thing to do, imho.

It gets a little messy around 39-41 / 523-525ish, but if you're in the 100th percentile it gets moot anyways, and there are only a few schools that even range that high.
Click to expand...

alright, LizzyM score = 10*GPA + MCAT (out of 45) with a percentile conversion where needed then. For any MCAT scale AAMC chooses to come up with
 
BTW I just created a percentile conversion calculator that we can use for the system I created, I'll upload it in a few minutes.
 
Lord Kek said:
We'll need a new score system soon because old MCAT scores will cease to be relevant within a year or two.
Click to expand...
LizzyM as a stats shorthand might simply cease being used, and instead the "LizzyM approach" or something will take its place. The underlying theory of trying to find schools with matching averaged stats, where falling 0.1 short on GPA is made up by coming in ~1 pt higher on the MCAT, should still hold pretty true. Maybe more like 1.5 MCAT points because of the expanded range now.

Switching to a new system where MCAT is weighted 60%, or 1.5x as heavily as GPA, is a pretty big shift. I don't know if it would hold up as well.
 
efle said:
LizzyM as a stats shorthand might simply cease being used, and instead the "LizzyM approach" or something will take its place. The underlying theory of trying to find schools with matching averaged stats, where falling 0.1 short on GPA is made up by coming in ~1 pt higher on the MCAT, should still hold pretty true. Maybe more like 1.5 MCAT points because of the expanded range now.

Switching to a new system where MCAT is weighted 60%, or 1.5x as heavily as GPA, is a pretty big shift. I don't know if it would hold up as well.
Click to expand...
We could also adjust the formula so that GPA is multiplied by 12.5 such that the MCAT is weighted 53%, more similar to the old MCAT weight of 53%.
 
LizzyM said:
Well, a 4.0/524 ends up being
10*(4+2)+(524-500)
60+24=84
So at the top end, the GPA contributes 5/7th of the total score whereas with the old LizzyM, the distribution of the two were closer to 50-50.
At the lower end
3.5/510
55+10 = 65. Again, the GPA contributes even more to the overall score 85%.

I'm feeling like this skews too much toward GPA.
Click to expand...

How about instead of 10*(GPA + 2) + (MCAT - 500), it can be like 10*GPA + (MCAT - 480). The resulting values are unchanged but the weight is shifted towards MCAT. Trying to preserve the 0 < score < 85 range as much as possible.
 
If we're going to start doing crazy stuff like this, we can 100% get it to work, but people are going to have to rely on a web tool to find the LizzyM scores of themselves and schools, instead of having a handy mental-math heuristic.
 
efle said:
If we're going to start doing crazy stuff like this, we can 100% get it to work, but people are going to have to rely on a web tool to find the LizzyM scores of themselves and schools, instead of having a handy mental-math heuristic.
Click to expand...

? The point is to make it a heuristic. I wasn't paying attention to other random derivations but what I propose fits the bill

Forgot about this 2015 stuff
 
Lawper said:
How about instead of 10*(GPA + 2) + (MCAT - 500), it can be like 10*GPA + (MCAT - 480). The resulting values are unchanged but the weight is shifted towards MCAT. Trying to preserve the 0 < score < 85 range as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I like that. Trying to maintain the ability to do the math in my head.
GPA * 10 is easy.
MCAT -480 is MCAT -500 + 20 which I can also do in my head:

3.99 + 524 becomes 39.9+44 which restores the balance
3.50+510 becomes 3.5 + 30

This gets the LizzyM seal of approval.
 
Lawper said:
? The point is to make it a heuristic. I wasn't paying attention to other random derivations but what I propose fits the bill
Click to expand...
[10*(GPA + 2) + (MCAT - 500)] is not an easy heuristic you can do in 2 seconds for dozens of schools while browsing the MSAR
 
That should not get seal of approval...

Example: 3.7 / 28 vs 504

Original: 65
New: 61 (treats it like a 24)

Example: 3.7 / 37 vs 520

Original: 74
New: 77 (treats it like a 40)

Gets the efle red mark of not making sense
 
efle said:
That should not get seal of approval...

Example: 3.7 / 28 vs 504

Original: 65
New: 61 (treats it like a 24)

Example: 3.7 / 37 vs 520

Original: 74
New: 77 (treats it like a 40)

Gets the efle red mark of not making sense
Click to expand...

The guidelines change slightly because the score range is expanded from 0 < score < 85 to -8 < score < 88. Do not use it as a direct percentile conversion.

Old 76 (i.e. 3.8/38 or 3.9/37) is new 80. This is generally the number to shoot for for top schools.

Old 73 (i.e. 3.8/35 or 3.9/34) is new 75. This is generally a good number for mid tiers while possibly being competitive for some top tiers.

Old 70 (i.e. 3.7/33 or 3.9/31) is new 70. This is generally where a "competitive" applicant for med school falls around.

Old 67 (i.e. 3.6/31 or 3.7/30) is new 65. This is around the accepted applicant median.

Old 65 (i.e. 3.6/29 or 3.7/28) is new 60. This is highly competitive for DOs and marginal for MD.
 
What's wrong with having to use a calculator to get a score anyways? We use calculators in everyday life, and pretty much every electronic device already has one in place. We have to use calculators to find our overall GPA, why plug this number into an imprecise system? By using the formula (12.5*GPA)+(MCAT-472) you'd be getting a perfectly weighted score that wouldn't deviate no matter how high or low your GPA or MCAT are.
 
efle said:
Many places have a 3-years rule, so for the 2017 apps about to go out they will take scores from 2014. All the 2014 and the first round of 2015 was still on the old scale.
Click to expand...

A lot of times that 3-years rule is 3 years from matriculation, not application. Many schools will stop taking the old-style MCAT this cycle.
 
phantomyinyang said:
It's so ugly... And not nearly as user-friendly as the old one was...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it's great they are giving us 25th and 75th percentile stats now, but the whole thing runs extremely slow and the visuals for the score ranges are atrocious
 
Lord Kek said:
What's wrong with having to use a calculator to get a score anyways? We use calculators in everyday life, and pretty much every electronic device already has one in place. We have to use calculators to find our overall GPA, why plug this number into an imprecise system? By using the formula (12.5*GPA)+(MCAT-472) you'd be getting a perfectly weighted score that wouldn't deviate no matter how high or low your GPA or MCAT are.
Click to expand...
What can I say. I'm old school. I like to be able to do math in my head.
 
especially if two values ever overlap, like if 75th and 90th are the same, it freaks out and becomes an indecipherable blob of colors
 
Damn, a lot schools with the equivalent of 37+... wtf happened?
 
efle said:
Yeah, I think it's great they are giving us 25th and 75th percentile stats now, but the whole thing runs extremely slow and the visuals for the score ranges are atrocious
Click to expand...
The whole thing looks and runs like a 7th grader designed it...
 
phantomyinyang said:
It's so ugly... And not nearly as user-friendly as the old one was...
Click to expand...

I agree, but try comparing 5 schools at once. You just hit the compare button in the bottom right of each schools info sheet on the search page. The site will generate a lovely excel comparison sheet that is easy to zoom through and contains most of the relevant information.
 
Anyone else have a problem with the fact that they don't break down race and ethnicity anymore? Now it's less obvious where certain URM's should aim their applications.
 
Groggs said:
Somewhat off topic, but with the new MSAR out I want to look into this for my own school list. Are there certain schools that favor big numbers more than ECs? I ask because my GPA and MCAT are really high, but ECs and research are decent but nothing incredible.
Click to expand...
I was in a similar situation was told Saint Louis is like this. I did get a II from them.
 
efle said:
Going to be interesting to see if they maintain like this, or if they climb a little back up into the low teens
Click to expand...

UCLA, Davis and Irvine median MCAT lower than any of the SUNY schools... How hard is it become instate in California?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
How important is preview for UCLA and Kaiser?
Replies
0
Views
839
baristawarista
B
vsus
Quick preview question - school not showing up, contact admissions?
Replies
1
Views
533
moltmannfanboi
M
Mr.Smile12
2025-2026 AMCAS MSAR Reports / Discussions
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
myribosomesbad
Resubmitting primaries for Preview?
Replies
2
Views
808
tzuyu&yuqi
tzuyu&yuqi
P
  • Locked
PSA: AAMC PREview Discrepancy
Replies
6
Views
2K
premed123321
P
Top