-
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
JPM WSU/CSU JPM: UCAT Section Weighting Discussion and Questions
- Thread starter doggy
- Start date
Interim analysis until we have more close cases posted.
Comparing these two GWS applicants:
(A) 95th%ile 3120 - 660 830 880 750 - No
(B) 91st%ile 3020 - 810 720 800 690 - Yes
(A) is higher in every part except VR. This proves again VR is weighted heavier than the other three combined. The question is by what numeric factor.
====================
Another two GWS applicants:
(C) 88th%ile 2960 - 760 740 710 750 (MSO 749.8) - No (MedicalWife's wife)
(D) 96th%ile 3160 - 660 800 880 820 (MSO 732.0) - Yes
Only way to make weighted (C) lower than (D) is to reduce VR weight substantially, to say 0.49 instead of 0.58.
The MSO formula becomes [0.49VR + 0.17(DM+QR+AR)]
This would make weighted (C) 746.4 No versus (D) 748.4 Yes compliant.
However my concern is reducing VR to 0.49 would turn other scores non-compliant. I'll work more on it.
Comparing these two GWS applicants:
(A) 95th%ile 3120 - 660 830 880 750 - No
(B) 91st%ile 3020 - 810 720 800 690 - Yes
(A) is higher in every part except VR. This proves again VR is weighted heavier than the other three combined. The question is by what numeric factor.
====================
Another two GWS applicants:
(C) 88th%ile 2960 - 760 740 710 750 (MSO 749.8) - No (MedicalWife's wife)
(D) 96th%ile 3160 - 660 800 880 820 (MSO 732.0) - Yes
Only way to make weighted (C) lower than (D) is to reduce VR weight substantially, to say 0.49 instead of 0.58.
The MSO formula becomes [0.49VR + 0.17(DM+QR+AR)]
This would make weighted (C) 746.4 No versus (D) 748.4 Yes compliant.
However my concern is reducing VR to 0.49 would turn other scores non-compliant. I'll work more on it.
MedicalWife
Member
She has emailed the uni so will let you know if it was a mistake.
I seriously wonder why WSU messes with their weightings every year. I wonder if they see (or believe they see) a tangible difference in the students coming to interview. It seems like a fair bit of effort to change weightings year on year.
Couple possible reasons:
- School staff change. A newcomer Dean or Admissions Manager have their own ideas how they want the weightings.
- More likely though, I suspect WSU's formula not only sets the xx% section weight but also factors in the section's Median/Max score. The latter would change from year to year thus the overall weghtings change. Med school has not taught me how to cope with this complication
grainrice2213
Member
Any idea on the rural cutoffs this year?Couple possible reasons:
- School staff change. A newcomer Dean or Admissions Manager have their own ideas how they want the weightings.
- More likely though, I suspect WSU's formula not only sets the xx% section weight but also factors in the section's Median/Max score. The latter would change from year to year thus the overall weghtings change. Med school has not taught me how to cope with this complication
Aspiringmed
Member
Relative to (B) this someone^ has 170 lower VR but 340 higher in the other three, thus able to combine up to the invite cutoff.
VR is their weakest score, if we tweak the MSO formula to weight VR less & non-VR more, their weighted score would be even more above the cutoff i.e. won't cause an upset.
I hadn’t even considered the second point, any chance you can decipher how it changes year on year using that hypothesisCouple possible reasons:
- School staff change. A newcomer Dean or Admissions Manager have their own ideas how they want the weightings.
- More likely though, I suspect WSU's formula not only sets the xx% section weight but also factors in the section's Median/Max score. The latter would change from year to year thus the overall weghtings change. Med school has not taught me how to cope with this complication
shadowlike04
Member
Hi, does anyone know if WSU preferences GWS applicants post-interview?
It seems there is some preference.
In the submission to AMC for accreditation renewal a few years ago WSU said they allocated minimum 50% of interview spots to GWS and the two intakes prior were approx 60% GWS.
shadowlike04
Member
Yeah I heard of those figures but I assumed it was due to the higher percentages of GWS applicants who received an interview and not rather a post-interview bias. Anyway, guess I'll just focus on smashing the interview 
A1 adds: Considering WSU's place-offer formula is 75% interview + 25% UCAT and GWS interviewees' UCAT are quite lower, left to itself we'd expect the intakes to be less than 50% GWS. It actually increased to 60% so there must be some sort of post-interview bias.
A1 adds: Considering WSU's place-offer formula is 75% interview + 25% UCAT and GWS interviewees' UCAT are quite lower, left to itself we'd expect the intakes to be less than 50% GWS. It actually increased to 60% so there must be some sort of post-interview bias.
MedicalWife
Member
The post inteview bias is likely just self selection. The UCAT required to get an interview for non-GWS is quite high, lending to most non GWS applicants likely getting interviews elsewhere and potentially accepting them. Whereas those who identify as GWS likely has WSU as the uni closest to home and hence their first preference.
I think this could play into it, but if WSU have put in AMC accreditation documentation that they will produce 50%+ doctors from western Sydney I’d imagine they would have measures in place to make sure it occurs additional to hoping it naturally balances out post interview.
MedicalWife
Member
Just an update she had a score high enough for interview.
A1 adds: Wonderful news, congrats. Also helps show the MSO formula is pretty good approximation.
A1 adds: Wonderful news, congrats. Also helps show the MSO formula is pretty good approximation.
It also officially means JPM get the annual award for first F*** Up of the admissions cycle! I honestly love how MSO plays a role in sorting these things out and facilitating communication that Unis often just want to shut down. Good work to you all for persisting and good luck for the next step!
MD_nevergiveup
Member
Anyone who knows CSU UCAT cut-off if as a current CSU student?
There is no pre-determined UCAT cut-off. It is established each year by virtue of the number of applicants, the UCAT scores of the applicants according to the algorithm (which can change without notice), and how many interview spots there are to allocate. It’s often in the general vicinity of a specific score (you can look at the accumulated data from previous years for that info as it depends on GWS status, rural status, etc). You mention you’re a current CSU student which MAY mean you’re eligible for the rural pathway (though not necessarily), but I don’t think it automatically infers any benefit in and of itself for the JPM.
MD_nevergiveup
Member
Thanks for your reply. I couldn’t find the accumulated data from previous years. Could you please show me if you don’t mind? Thank you.
2024 Entry Interview Invites DATA COLLECTION
Please use the below template for reporting interview invites when they are released. University: Course and preference in relevant TAC: (ie. Griffith Dent 3rd preference) Date and time of invite receipt: UCAT percentile rank: VR: DM: QR: AR: Total: SJ: JPM/WSU formula (58%VR + 12%DM + 12%QR +...
medstudentsonline.com.au
Etc. (there is a thread for each year)