Personally, Rey, I think they're screwing with us. But then I am, in no way, shape, or form, biased. Whatsoever.
And thanks for the support guys!
Funny you should mention that, BC. I was thinking about it, and came up with a conclusion that has very little basis and thus should be taken with a grain of salt:
So, mark out of 10, accounts for 25% (according to them). Since a 1 and 10 are auto-KO and auto-entry (right?), that leaves 8 marks accounting for 25% (... I think. I mean, why give someone a full 25% if you're gonna take them in anyway? Seems like a waste of time bothering to give them a rank score). But instead of 3.125% per mark, I think that they distribute it differently for each score. Like, the % difference between a 5 and a 6 is different than that between an 8 and a 9, which is in turn different than that between a 2 and a 3? I mean, in all seriousness, I doubt that interviewees were bad enough to get a 4/10. People seem pretty self-aware, or at least the ones that I've met are.
That may explain why people with fantastic GPAs and UMAT scores don't get in, and people with lower UMAT and GPA scores do. Even if you did fodge the interview, the weighting has to be pretty crazy for your GPA and UMAT not to make up for it, considering how they account for 75% of your rank score, combined.
Again, I am very likely sprouting nonsense. I just had way too much time on my hands over the inter-semester break. (yy)