This is something that I've also wondered. I guess they would have to treat them the same as to not complicate things- if they were to treat them separately then they would have to split the cohort into two (one for 2010 and one for 2011) and find a way to scale the marks to account for the difference in difficulty. Not only would this be impractical but it also would be time consuming. Since Auckland uses raw scores, I doubt that the differences in 2010 and 2011 will have a significant impact on the scoring process (although the 2011 candidates would have a SLIGHT advantage)
-
Welcome to MSO!
We are an online community for current and prospective medical, dental and allied health students and early career professionals from Australia and New Zealand.Please read: About MSO | Annual Welcome and Important Information | MSO Rules
Quick Links To Forums
Tests/Interviews: UCAT | GAMSAT | Interviews Entrance Discussion: Graduate Medicine | Undergraduate Medicine | Dentistry -
Please consider registering on MSO. Benefits of registering are:
- Able to post and participate in the forum
- After 10 posts: Private Message Other Users
- After 25 posts: Access to the Chatbox
- After 100 posts: Custom user titles and Ad-free experience
If you would like to get involved with MSO or have ideas, suggestions, comments, criticisms or other feedback please Contact Us
Auckland OLY1 chat - archive
- Thread starter Nealie
- Start date
- Status
Um, I don't think this years UMAT was in fact easier than last years. Why? Because UMAT marks are scaled to account for variations in exam difficultly from year-to-year.
Given that you seemed to need a higher raw mark to reach a very high percentile this year I think the most likely explanation is that the UMAT cohort on the whole did better.
Remember - the UMAT percentile doesn't matter. It's only there for your own benefit, so you can put your score into some sort of context. Your raw score is what matters.
Given that you seemed to need a higher raw mark to reach a very high percentile this year I think the most likely explanation is that the UMAT cohort on the whole did better.
Remember - the UMAT percentile doesn't matter. It's only there for your own benefit, so you can put your score into some sort of context. Your raw score is what matters.
Tupac4life
Regular Member
All in all do you think GPA and the Interview would have more of a role to play at the end of the day due to the greater weighting that the university places on them in the admissions process? I think the guy at the med talk agreed with this stance when people asked him a few months ago. :unsure:
I completely agree. Apart from the modest 15% weighting and the use of raw scores as opposed to percentiles, I've never heard of a medical student who believed the main reason they got in was due to their high UMAT score
D
dylangordhan
Guest
so basically if someone were to have gotten a 95 percentile UMAT they have very little advantage over a 75 percentile. But if someone had a GPA of 9.0 they have a MUCH larger advantage over someone with 8.75.
I doubt it. You're talking about almost a 10 point difference in raw UMAT scores.
I'd be very surprised if the system worked such that a 10 point difference in UMAT (15%) mattered significantly less than a 0.25 point difference in GPA (60%).
I'd be very surprised if the system worked such that a 10 point difference in UMAT (15%) mattered significantly less than a 0.25 point difference in GPA (60%).
D
dylangordhan
Guest
how do I know you haven't identity hacked me?
put up a photo of yourself @
Yeah, porn, trolling, apparent identity-hacking, rather serious personal attacks on other members... Just no *shakes head*. We're not 4chan.
Tupac4life
Regular Member
It wouldn't be a pleasant sight if the med-admissions team from the University of Auckland found out.:bored:
Tupac4life
Regular Member
Midi2Med
Member
Yes, it is. Also for BSc (Biomed). I wish I could do a full debrief about it (and I really want to), but have to be mindful that they probably know about this forum and I do not want to affect my chances of getting it.
If I did NCEA, I wouldn't have to go through this. But because I did Bursary in 2002 (NCEA wasn't around then) and have done some tertiary study, I had to apply under this scheme. Plus they do offer awesome support if you do get in under that scheme. I am just hoping they do not make me do the Cert in Health Science, as it is a foundation level course, and doing such a thing would be an insult to my intelligence.
If I did NCEA, I wouldn't have to go through this. But because I did Bursary in 2002 (NCEA wasn't around then) and have done some tertiary study, I had to apply under this scheme. Plus they do offer awesome support if you do get in under that scheme. I am just hoping they do not make me do the Cert in Health Science, as it is a foundation level course, and doing such a thing would be an insult to my intelligence.
Tupac4life
Regular Member
Good luck for that. I'm sure you'd get into both. Fingers crossed ^_^. Anyway what are you planning to study if you got into both BSc and BHSc out of curiosity?
Wouldn't overly surprise me if they read this forum. Other uni admins have been known to post on MSO, lol.
Tupac4life
Regular Member
Wow. Really? That's kind of scary but yeah I guess that's a high possibility.*:mellow:
There was one incident in 2009 that was highly likely to have resulted from at least one Otago staff member reading this forum. Doubt there's anyone reading too intently, or that every post gets read by someone, but it can never be ruled out.
However, it's all anonymous, and it'd be highly unprofessional of a uni to let a post on this forum affect someones application for any programme (med or otherwise).
However, it's all anonymous, and it'd be highly unprofessional of a uni to let a post on this forum affect someones application for any programme (med or otherwise).
- Status