The 2016 MSAR

[efle]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm applying this upcoming cycle, when should i get the MSAR, if at all? Is it worth it?

You mean you're applying in a few months? Get it now. Essential for making a good school list. Has all sorts of goodies, some of the big ones being:

Data on each school's 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile GPAs and MCAT scores
How many applicants per school, how many are interviewed, broken into instate vs out of state applicants. Helps you pick the public schools that are friendly to out of staters
Deadlines, required coursework, tuition and fees, etc

 

[sovereign0]

I'm applying this upcoming cycle, when should i get the MSAR, if at all? Is it worth it?

It's absolutely worth it. You entire school list should be formulated in part by the MSAR. The data on there will keep you from applying to schools where you shouldn't, and the money you save pays for the MSAR several times over.

 

[Lawpy]

@gyngyn do you think that MSAR 2017 will have data on the new MCAT? Or will the data be available in MSAR 2018?

 

[gyngyn]

@gyngyn do you think that MSAR 2017 will have data on the new MCAT? Or will the data be available in MSAR 2018?

Edit: The first class with new MCAT data is currently being seated. Their data will be available in a year (also known as MCAT 2018).

 

[Lawpy]

There should be new MCAT data for MSAR 2017.

That'll be good. We can test out two things:

1. LizzyM scores for the new MCAT

2. MCAT gradients (i.e. 500 apply DO broadly, 505 apply any DO, 510 apply low tier MD, 515 apply low/mid tier MD, 520 apply top tiers)

 

[efle]

There should be new MCAT data for MSAR 2017.

What? The one coming out in two months? How is that possible when the first people to take the new MCAT are mid-cycle right now?

 

[gyngyn]

What? The one coming out in two months? How is that possible when the first people to take the new MCAT are mid-cycle right now?

We have admitted lots of folks with the new MCAT but their data won't be available until next year.
I can never get used to the idea that the MSAR is named for the subsequent year!

 

[Lawpy]

We have admitted lots of folks with the new MCAT. Their data should be reasonably be available next year. It won't be in the one that opens in two months, though.
I can never get used to the idea that the MCAT is named for the subsequent year!

Wait, MSAR 2016 is the current one, for the 2014-2015 cycle? So MSAR 2017 is for 2015-2016 cycle then? ... So we get data on new MCAT in MSAR 2018, which is next year?

You know, it'd be less confusing if MSAR named its years as the end of the current cycle 😕😕

Edit: The first class with new MCAT data is currently being seated. Their data will be available in a year (also known as MCAT 2018).

Ah that makes sense thanks. Really confusing

 

[gyngyn]

Wait, MSAR 2016 is the current one, for the 2014-2015 cycle? So MSAR 2017 is for 2015-2016 cycle then? ... So we get data on new MCAT in MSAR 2018, which is next year?

You know, it'd be less confusing if MSAR named its years as the end of the current cycle 😕😕

No kidding.

 

[Oh_Gee]

We have admitted lots of folks with the new MCAT but their data won't be available until next year.
I can never get used to the idea that the MSAR is named for the subsequent year!

isn't that how new cars work? also magazine months are always 1 ahead

 

[161MD]

I noticed there were new box + whiskers for schools only for applicants' new MCATs??

"Acceptance data for the 2016 class will be available in the next MSAR" - so they only have applicants' info for now, but no acceptance? Isn't this cycle winding down already? I saw that they updated matriculant data - is that for this year or the previous? XD This is so confusing...

 

[littledreamer]

How do we best use the data from the box-and-whiskers plots on new MCAT *applicant* scores? Obviously, the matriculated scores are much more telling, but I'm just wondering what the best way to interpret the new data is....

 

[gyngyn]

How do we best use the data from the box-and-whiskers plots on new MCAT *applicant* scores? Obviously, the matriculated scores are much more telling, but I'm just wondering what the best way to interpret the new data is....

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason for including this.
Maybe to let you know how stiff the competition is?

 

[161MD]

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason for including this.
Maybe to let you know how stiff the competition is?

XD That's nice of them I suppose...

 

[efle]

How do we best use the data from the box-and-whiskers plots on new MCAT *applicant* scores? Obviously, the matriculated scores are much more telling, but I'm just wondering what the best way to interpret the new data is....

You cant, really. It gives you an idea of just how heavily a school skews towards high stats applicants, but for making a list you are still best off looking at where students like you were admitted.

 

[littledreamer]

You cant, really. It gives you an idea of just how heavily a school skews towards high stats applicants, but for making a list you are still best off looking at where students like you were admitted.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason for including this.
Maybe to let you know how stiff the competition is?

I looked at the data some more and you're right, that seems to be a good comparison tool. For instance, it looks like Quinnipiac had an average MCAT of 32 in 2015, but the 2016 data (labeling of these years is confusing....) shows that a 513/~33 is the 90th percentile of applicants. Conversely, Tufts has a 2015 average of 33, but this is just barely beyond the 75th margin, as the average of applicants in 2015 is a 34.

But where I get lost is that in 2016, it looks like the median MCAT for applicants at Tufts is a 508.....doesn't that correlate to about a 30 on the old MCAT?? Or is the 50th percentile not equivalent to the median? AND it looks like the national average for applicants is a 501....which theoretically converts to a 25 which is WAY below 2015's average of a 31. Unless they mean everyone who sat for the MCAT, but mine is definitely labeled "applicants"....

I'm not planning on changing my list at all based off the 2016 data, it's just interesting trying to figure out how it fits into the puzzle.

 

[efle]

I looked at the data some more and you're right, that seems to be a good comparison tool. For instance, it looks like Quinnipiac had an average MCAT of 32 in 2015, but the 2016 data (labeling of these years is confusing....) shows that a 513/~33 is the 90th percentile of applicants. Conversely, Tufts has a 2015 average of 33, but this is just barely beyond the 75th margin, as the average of applicants in 2015 is a 34.

But where I get lost is that in 2016, it looks like the median MCAT for applicants at Tufts is a 508.....doesn't that correlate to about a 30 on the old MCAT?? Or is the 50th percentile not equivalent to the median? AND it looks like the national average for applicants is a 501....which theoretically converts to a 25 which is WAY below 2015's average of a 31. Unless they mean everyone who sat for the MCAT, but mine is definitely labeled "applicants"....

I'm not planning on changing my list at all based off the 2016 data, it's just interesting trying to figure out how it fits into the puzzle.

At many of the higher ranked schools, the median accepted is at or above the 90th percentile of applicants. Blows my mind that 90% of applicants are really vying for half the seats, with the top 10% filling their own half.

The box and whisker shows applicants (we don't yet know which of them will end up accepted) while the bottom data is accepted applicants. The typical applicant this year is a little lower (a 501 is ~ a 26, while in the last cycle with old scoring the median applicant was a ~28). The 31 is the national median for accepted.

 

[Pantaloooons]

At many of the higher ranked schools, the median accepted is at or above the 90th percentile of applicants. Blows my mind that 90% of applicants are really vying for half the seats, with the top 10% filling their own half.

The box and whisker shows applicants (we don't yet know which of them will end up accepted) while the bottom data is accepted applicants. The typical applicant this year is a little lower (a 501 is ~ a 26, while in the last cycle with old scoring the median applicant was a ~28). The 31 is the national median for accepted.

Perhaps the percentile achieved by a score of 501 will approach that of the old MCAT score of a 28. When will the percentiles of the new MCAT be updated? Is there anticipation that there will be a significant change in the percentiles of the new MCAT compared to the ones published from the early administrations?

 

[efle]

Perhaps the percentile achieved by a score of 501 will approach that of the old MCAT score of a 28. When will the percentiles of the new MCAT be updated? Is there anticipation that there will be a significant change in the percentiles of the new MCAT compared to the ones published from the early administrations?

They released a new bell curve that looks a little smoothed out compared to this one that I think you're referring to, but that April/May data remains the only percentile table they've released to my knowledge.

Being a scaled exam, the 50th percentile should continue to sit at 500. The real change might be more self-selection among applicants, in which a better understanding of new scores leads people in the 504 and below group to retake or refrain from applying.

 

[justadream]

@gyngyn

Question: When a school lists the # of students waitlisted, is that number:

A. The number that the school initially offers a WL position
or
B. The number of students who accept the WL position (and presumably still are on it by April 30/May 2)
or
C. [something else]

 

[gyngyn]

@gyngyn

Question: When a school lists the # of students waitlisted, is that number:

A. The number that the school initially offers a WL position
or
B. The number of students who accept the WL position (and presumably still are on it by April 30/May 2)
or
C. [something else]

This is the first time they've ever asked and they weren't specific. The answers could be any of the above.

 

[Pantaloooons]

@gyngyn

Question: When a school lists the # of students waitlisted, is that number:

A. The number that the school initially offers a WL position
or
B. The number of students who accept the WL position (and presumably still are on it by April 30/May 2)
or
C. [something else]

Are you referring to the information provided in the new MSAR that reads "Typical number of waitlist positions per cycle"?

On another note, does "Number of acceptance offers granted to applicants on the waitlist" (from MSAR) refer to number of matriculants who were on the waitlist or the total number of offers, regardless of whether or not the applicant ends of matriculating? I'm guessing it's the latter but just wanted to be sure.

 

[gyngyn]

Are you referring to the information provided in the new MSAR that reads "Typical number of waitlist positions per cycle"?

On another note, does "Number of acceptance offers granted to applicants on the waitlist" (from MSAR) refer to number of matriculants who were on the waitlist or the total number of offers, regardless of whether or not the applicant ends of matriculating? I'm guessing it's the latter but just wanted to be sure.

I really do not know how each school interpreted these questions.

 

[Pantaloooons]

I really do not know how each school interpreted these questions.

For some schools, it seems like "Number of acceptance offers granted to applicants on the waitlist" refers to the number of students in the entering class (matriculating) that came from the waitlist, not the total number of offers extended to those on the waitlist.

I'm still wondering why they would provide this kind of data, while omitting the number of total acceptances extended. I think this number would be much more helpful.

 

[gyngyn]

For some schools, it seems like "Number of acceptance offers granted to applicants on the waitlist" refers to the number of students in the entering class (matriculating) that came from the waitlist, not the total number of offers extended to those on the waitlist.

I'm still wondering why they would provide this kind of data, while omitting the number of total acceptances extended. I think this number would be much more helpful.

I really wish I knew. Either way it is of little help in predicting what will happen in subsequent years (unless it was a catastrophe). Even with a catastrophe, all you can predict is that the dean will be removed (quietly in about a year!).

 

[littledreamer]

At many of the higher ranked schools, the median accepted is at or above the 90th percentile of applicants. Blows my mind that 90% of applicants are really vying for half the seats, with the top 10% filling their own half.

The box and whisker shows applicants (we don't yet know which of them will end up accepted) while the bottom data is accepted applicants. The typical applicant this year is a little lower (a 501 is ~ a 26, while in the last cycle with old scoring the median applicant was a ~28). The 31 is the national median for accepted.

Ah, you're totally right about me crossing my applicant and accepted lines. My apologies.

And geez, I hadn't even thought of it like that.......scary! These box-and-whisker plots could easily lead to someone misinterpreting them imo, if they aren't careful to catch the discrepancy between all applicants and accepted. IE being at the 50th percentile for applicants does not mean at all that you're in the middle of the pack competitively. I imagine at some schools that 50th percentile of applicants falls far below the median accepted score....

Anyways, thanks for clearing that up for me!