Isn't that how box plots have always worked?
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
New MSAR Preview
Started by Overthink
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Last edited:
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?
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 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.
probably Because there are usually very few international students who apply and get in at each school
Don't the old scores expire soon? Bummer tho...
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.
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.
Well, actually being top quartile would be good. So really I'd be aiming for schools where you are at least above the 25th.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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%.
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.
? 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
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.
[10*(GPA + 2) + (MCAT - 500)] is not an easy heuristic you can do in 2 seconds for dozens of schools while browsing the MSAR
Ah nice, thanks!
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
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
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.
Youngin
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.
7
787593
22 years OLD
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.
8
814965
It's so ugly... And not nearly as user-friendly as the old one was...
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
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
8
814965
The whole thing looks and runs like a 7th grader designed it...
8
814965
"We do a holistic review of the applicant as a whole. We care about more than just numbers."
has it not always been?
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.
I was in a similar situation was told Saint Louis is like this. I did get a II from them.
I think it's the same number of places as last year
SLU or WUSTL?
@Groggs I think WashU, UChicago, Sinai, NYU, Case Western, USC off the top of my head emphasize numbers a little more than peers
Did the median MCAT for UCLA stand out to anyone else?
I think this is what holistic review ACTUALLY looks like.
Going to be interesting to see if they maintain like this, or if they climb a little back up into the low teens
UCLA, Davis and Irvine median MCAT lower than any of the SUNY schools... How hard is it become instate in California?
