• ALL USERS: please familiarise yourself with the MSO Forum Rules (updated 03/08/20). The link to the rules is the first in the forum list.
  • UCAT PREP COMPANY DISCUSSION: Site administrators have implemented a rule that states there is to be NO mention of UCAT prep companies. This includes discussion, recommendations, questions, and reviews, and extends to allusions, acronyms, and other other attempts to get around the rule. Offending content will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be warned and may be banned.

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

My Guess Is...

In the overall scheme one UCAT repeater scoring a high percentile pushes a non-repeater down the percentile ladder. The 90%ile score this year could be higher, but *all else being equal* there should be no significant change to the invite cutoff percentile. Any change from the repeat factor would be proportionally more non-standards (who repeated UCAT).
It is possible that that the percentile cut-offs for med schools that accept non-standards will go up a bit while the cut-offs for other med schools slightly go down.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

A1

Admissions Speculator
Moderator
It is possible that that the percentile cut-offs for med schools that accept non-standards will go up a bit while the cut-offs for other med schools slightly go down.
That's true. You have thought it out more deeply than I have.
 
Excellent find! Using the mean and standard deviation provided, we can pretty accurately extrapolate the 9th decile for 2006-2010. They are:

2006: 2720
2007: 2740
2008: 2780
2009: 2790
2010: 2820

2016 introduced Decision Making for the first time but it was a trial subtest, meaning that it wouldn't be scored and candidates could choose not to do it, leaving only three cognitive subtests (scored out of 2700). If we divide 2150 by 3 and multiply it by 4, we can extrapolate a rough four-section-adjusted 90th percentile score of ~2866.67.
If this is true, I'm crying inside XDD. All things considered, I have accepted this as a likely reality though.
 
Last edited:

fray20

Member
Amazing. Now can you do us a favour and research the weighting of UCAT in the selection criteria of the UK medical schools in 2006-2007 😛

I’m going to take a leap and say that if it’s weighted similarly to how it is in NZ (I.e. not very high) that the small “jump” in the first year won’t be able to be relied upon as a valid predictor of what will happen in Aus this year because 1. UCAT wouldn’t be worth as much so there’s less incentive to heavily prepare for it like there is over here and 2. Medicine entry is far more competitive in 2020 than it was in 2006-2007.

I’ve made my prediction so now I need to double down on it despite the evidence 🤪
You may be joking, but someone has already beaten me to it 😆. A quick google search has me finding an entire research article on the use of UKCAT from 2006 to 2010, published in 2011. I'll briefly sum it up below. Use of UKCAT scores in student selection by UK medical schools, 2006-2010

From what I have skimmed through in my search, in the UK, you can apply to up to 5 universities through UCAS (similar to UAC), and you can have four as medical schools, and interview invites can only come from the 4 universities you applied to. There are around 33 medical schools in the UK currently, and 26 consider the UCAT (in 2019).
Different universities weigh UKCAT differently. Adam et al. (2011) have classified their methods (for 2006-2009 sitting) into 4 different categories; borderline, factor, threshold and rescue. Some schools used multiple methods at different stages of the selection process.
Borderline - used as a discriminant when applicants are of equal standing based on other criteria.
Factor - Used as one component that makes up the applicant's total score (2% to 33% weighting). Some schools just used it for interview invites, and other schools would add an applicant's interview score to the pre-interview total score, and used the new total score to decide an offer.
Threshold - A minimum score used as cut off.
Rescue - Some schools had their own method of assessment, and would allow UKCAT (above a pre-determined level) to be used to compensate for a lower score in a component of their assessment. "The key characteristic of the trade-off method that distinguished it from the factor method was that the school pre-determined the scores at which the trade-off would be applied and the amount of compensation to be given."

1596275417203.png
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Crow

Moderator Band 🦧
Moderator
You may be joking, but someone has already beaten me to it 😆. A quick google search has me finding an entire research article on the use of UKCAT from 2006 to 2010, published in 2011. I'll briefly sum it up below. Use of UKCAT scores in student selection by UK medical schools, 2006-2010

From what I have skimmed through in my search, in the UK, you can apply to up to 5 universities through UCAS (similar to UAC), and you can have four as medical schools, and interview invites can only come from the 4 universities you applied to. There are around 33 medical schools in the UK currently, and 26 consider the UCAT (in 2019).
Different universities weigh UKCAT differently. Adam et al. (2011) have classified their methods (for 2006-2009 sitting) into 4 different categories; borderline, factor, threshold and rescue. Some schools used multiple methods at different stages of the selection process.
Borderline - used as a discriminant when applicants are of equal standing based on other criteria.
Factor - Used as one component that makes up the applicant's total score (2% to 33% weighting). Some schools just used it for interview invites, and other schools would add an applicant's interview score to the pre-interview total score, and used the new total score to decide an offer.
Threshold - A minimum score used as cut off.
Rescue - Some schools had their own method of assessment, and would allow UKCAT (above a pre-determined level) to be used to compensate for a lower score in a component of their assessment. "The key characteristic of the trade-off method that distinguished it from the factor method was that the school pre-determined the scores at which the trade-off would be applied and the amount of compensation to be given."

View attachment 3834
Ok, wow, I was definitely joking!

You’ve well and truly outdone yourself this time! You’re officially on my “people that make Crow happy” list. 😎
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Top