We have been impressed by the outstanding academic and non-academic achievements of our applicants this year and are sorry we cannot extend interview invitations to more of you. Those of you who were not invited to interview may want additional feedback on your application. While we are unable to give one-on-one feedback, this explanation of scores might help to answer some questions. Please also see the FAQs below.
OGPA = Overall GPA in UBC percentage
AGPA = Adjusted GPA in UBC percentage
AQ Score = OGPA (if not eligible for AGPA) or AGPA, converted to a number out of 50 (50 is the maximum score). The AQ score is just your OGPA or AGPA, automatically converted to a number out of 50 by our application system. The exact conversion mechanism is confidential. It is important to emphasize that the calculation is automatically determined so if your OGPA/AGPA is correct, your AQ score is also correct. If you are a reapplicant and your AQ score is different from last year, that’s ok; the scores are standardized against the current applicant pool, which changes from year to year. This means your AQ score can change even if your OGPA/AGPA stayed the same.
NAQ Score = The score given for the non-academic portions of the application, converted to a number out of 50. In order to make sure applicants receive a fair score for this section, all file reviewers are carefully trained, there are various checks throughout the process to ensure consistency in marking, and the NAQ score is standardized to make up for any scoring variations between reviewers. Due to these safeguards we do not accept requests for re-evaluation of the non-academic section.
Please note that every year there are changes in the applicant pool which affect the scoring of the non-academic section. These include the competiveness of the pool, the addition or deletion of activities from an individual’s application, and adjustments made to the average candidate profile that reviewers use to help evaluate the non-academic sections. Therefore, NAQ scores may fluctuate from year to year.
TFR Score = AQ Score + NAQ Score. Your TFR score might be really close to the cutoff. We have double-checked these files for accuracy, so unfortunately you might just be one of the unlucky ones whose score is really close but not quite high enough to get an interview this year.
FAQs
Feedback
I was not invited for an interview; can I talk/meet with someone to discuss my application? I would like some more feedback.
Due to limited resources, we regret that we are not able to offer any feedback advising to applicants who were not granted an interview, nor can we provide any further information about the evaluation of your file. More information about scoring can be found on our Evaluation Criteria page. Reviewing the Interim Statistics on our Statistics page may also help you to identify some potential areas of improvement in your application.
I can tell why I didn’t get an interview, but how can I improve my scores?
Unfortunately, we cannot give you individual feedback about improving your scores – each person’s situation and application is unique and we do not have the resources to offer this type of advising to applicants.
In general terms, improving one’s AQ score seems fairly straightforward, in that the only way to improve a GPA is by taking more classes and achieving higher grades in those classes. It’s the related if/how/when/why/is it worth it questions that are much more complicated. You know your situation, capacities, future plans, and personal resources the best, and you are the best person to make this kind of decision. We cannot tell you what impact improving your GPA would have on your ultimate chances of acceptance.
For NAQ, we look for several things when we evaluate the non-academic portions of the application: longstanding, meaningful commitments; leadership; service ethic and altruism; ability to work with others, especially people outside of your peer group; and diverse interests and experiences. We also recognize exceptional achievements in some areas. With NAQ it is important to remember that the applicant pool isn’t made up of the same people you might normally compare yourself against, like your classmates or coworkers – it is made up of highly accomplished individuals just like you. For a further look at NAQ you might find it helpful to read the blog posts we published last year about NAQ myths: one is about NAQ scoring and one is about wording in NAQ entries. We hope this information is useful, but unfortunately we cannot offer specific ways to improve your NAQ score.
AQ
I think that there has been a mistake in the academic evaluation of my file.
The academic evaluation was based on the credits and grades entered by applicants. If you believe that there has been a specific error, please send an email via the application system detailing what you believe the mistake to be. Please note that some applicants entered wrong information – eg. did not include all courses, excluded failed courses or used letter grades instead of percentages. In these instances the Admissions Office had to correct these mistakes by verifying courses and grades on official transcripts. Therefore, there may be a discrepancy between averages calculated by an applicant and the grades as they appear on the Application Status page of his/her application.
The calculation of the AQ Score is automatically performed by the online application system, so as long as your OGPA or AGPA (if applicable) is correct, your AQ Score is also correct.
I am a re-applicant. I have not taken any further coursework so my OGPA/AGPA is the same (or I have taken further coursework and my OGPA/AGPA is higher than last year), but my scores have gone down. Why?
For the academic section of the application the actual evaluation criteria remained the same and there were no changes to the grade conversion tables used. However, academic scores, like non-academic scores, are standardized against the current applicant pool. You can check your AQ score by looking at your OGPA or AGPA (if applicable): if your OGPA/AGPA is correct, your AQ score is also correct.
I thought I should have been eligible for the AGPA to determine my academic score, but it does not seem to have been used.
The AGPA was calculated based on the courses and grades entered by applicants. The application system automatically determined (a) the lowest academic year which could be eliminated and (b) if this year could be dropped (i.e. if there were still 90 remaining credits with grades at the time of application, excluding summer 2015 courses). The Admissions Office verified that grades had been entered accurately by comparison with the official transcripts.
My overall GPA (or adjusted GPA if applicable) is slightly below the 75%/85% cut-off but I still feel my non-academic experiences are very strong and should have been reviewed.
Although we look for excellent non-academic qualities, these must also be accompanied by very good academic qualities to demonstrate an applicant’s ability to successfully handle the rigorous MD Undergraduate curriculum. It was determined that a lower AQ score (below 75% for BC and below 85% for OOP) cannot be offset by a strong NAQ score; hence these files were not reviewed.
I attended a university that did not use percentages for its grading scheme. How did UBC calculate averages from universities with different grading schemes?
Information on grade conversions, including our grade conversion tables, can be found on the Evaluation Criteria page of our website.
NAQ
I am not happy with the non-academic score I received. Can I request another review?
We appreciate that you may be dissatisfied with the scoring of the non-academic portion of your file, but would like to assure you that the non-academic portion of your application was reviewed and evaluated fairly and consistently. We will not re-evaluate the non-academic section of your file. At the beginning of each cycle, with guidelines provided by the Admissions Policy Committee, we establish a profile of an average applicant as a benchmark and points are allotted accordingly. Reviewers are trained and files are cross-checked. Although there cannot help but be a degree of subjectivity involved, we feel the standardized process keeps this to a minimum.
I am a re-applicant. I feel I have more activities and volunteer experiences than last year, but my NAQ score has not increased. Why?
Each year, the applicant pool is different, as is the average applicant profile used by non-academic evaluators. In addition, while we look for the same aptitudes and qualities each year, we periodically revise how we evaluate and score these qualities. All of these may contribute to a lower-than-expected NAQ score.
General
I was not invited for an interview and would like to appeal the decision.
We realize the importance of your application and appreciate that the results may be disappointing. Please be aware that we do our best to ensure that our evaluation practices are fair and consistent. Files are often double and sometimes triple checked to ensure accuracy. While we are unable to discuss your application over the phone, you may email Admissions through your on-line application if you have any specific concerns regarding your file evaluation. Please note that we will not re-evaluate the non-academic section of your file. We will not make appointments with the Dean, Associate Dean, Director or an Advisor/Coordinator to discuss your application.
I’m not sure if I am seeing the right thing under the scores line on my Application Status page.
This is what you should see, depending on your application status:
Ineligible: no scores
Regrets, Partial File Review: OGPA, AGPA (if applicable)
Regrets, No Interview: OGPA, AGPA (if applicable), AQ, NAQ and TFR
Invited to Interview: no scores
Hi UBC,
Thanks for the continually helpful blog posts.
I’m a Canadian who holds a BA in English from a private university the United States. My institution required 140 credit hours to graduate. I graduated with 131 credit hours; 9 were transfer credits from AP, totaling 140 hours. (Classes were 4 credits a piece—meaning I took the same number of courses as an institution that requires 120.)
I’m currently taking the now-former prerequisite science classes as a non-degree seeking student.
I have a two questions:
1) Do the the science courses I’m currently taking count toward OGPA, or is it only my undergraduate OGPA that is considered?
2) For AGPA, am I eligible for the adjustment to my undergraduate GPA with my 131 hours? My assumption is yes, since I would still be left with more than 100 hours left after removing 30. I just wanted to be sure.
Thanks in advance!
Hi, could you please email us instead?
Hello!
Thank you for your post, it was very helpful.
I am wondering how the AGPA calculation works. For example, if there is a certain number of credits there has to be to be considered as a “year”. I know that some schools require that you have taken 24 credits or more in the academic year for them to drop the year. Is there such requirement at UBC as well?
For example, if my worst year I had taken only two courses (6 credits) will that be dropped?
Thank you,
Jessie
There’s no minimum – any number of credits with grades from September of one year to August of the next year is considered an academic year for AGPA purposes. In your example, if your worst year has only 6 credits in it, then only 6 credits would be dropped. Hopefully this would still boost your GPA a bit!
Hi, I have a peculiar situation (but similar to the above) where I took a year off from school, but finished a 1 credit course during that year off. It turns out that that one credit course is a worst mark than any of my other yearly GPA averages, which means I will only have 1 credit dropped for the AGPA.
I was not considering medicine at the time of doing this course, and of course it turns out that this 1 credit course means a lot more to me now than simply a 1 credit weighting for my degree, because it effectively renders the AGPA calculation useless for all intensive purposes in my situation.
Let’s say the goal of most applicants is to complete 120 credits with great grades. Well someone who does a poor year with 24 credits will benefit tremendously from the AGPA relative to someone who has a poor year like in my extreme example of a 1 credit poor year. It seems as though if during the time period of my “poor” year, had I completed the next 24-30 credits in my degree, rather than doing one credit, I would’ve benefitted tremendously.
The result is that your policy effectively rewards students who do poorly in 24 credits or more compared to students who do poorly in just a few credits.
While I understand the importance of doing a full course load, it is still extremely curious that at UBC, in a bad year it is actually beneficial to do poorly in 10 courses rather than doing poorly in just one or two. This is just the math; in a 120 credit degree, removing 10 C marks is MUCH more beneficial than removing 1 C mark! Can you really say any member of the public would want a future medical student and future doctor who got 10 D’s over the student who got just 1 D? Assuming all other things equal, the primary reason the student with 10 D’s received an interview over the student with 1 D is because the person with 10 was able to drop 10 instead of just 1, even though the other student clearly has a better academic record.
Isn’t it clear this policy disproportionately benefits those who perform poorly in many classes, rather than those who perform poorly in less classes? Shouldn’t this nuance require further examination by administration, because of the potential of selecting entire pools of students who have higher AGPAs only because they dropped a higher number of courses in the calculation, rather than because of better academic performance? In fact, in the example I gave, the student with the worst academic performance is being rewarded. By looking at numbers and scenarios, I would argue this policy is actually harmful because the best academic students may potentially not be selected.
Also, in my fourth paragraph of the above post I am simply using 24 credits as an arbitrary example. My point is that there is a spectrum where removing 30 credits will benefit the applicant a lot and removing 1 credit will hardly make any difference and essentially provide no benefit. Let me walk you through an example where one student has better grades in all segments of a degree, but ends up with a MUCH worst AQ score.
Imagine a scenario where there are two students.
Student #1 has a 76% average in first year with 30 credits, 65% average in the next calendar year with only 1 credit, and a 69% average in the rest of year 2 (29 credits) in the following calendar year, and then a 95% average in both year 3 (30 credits) and year 4 (30 credits). AGPA is 83.87%. OGPA is 83.71%.
Now student #2 has a 76% average in first year (30 credits) and a 95 average in years 3 (30 credits) and 4 (30 credits) all just like the above, but now let’s say this applicant did much worst in second year and has a 65% average in in all 30 credits of his/her second year, and all were taken in the same year. AGPA is 88.67%. OGPA is 82.75%.
The analysis goes like this;
Years 1, 3 and 4 are identical in terms of credit loads and grades received for both students.
BUT in year 2, student #1 clearly outperformed student #2, ie student #1 had a 68.87% average whereas student 2 had 65% average. Yet the AGPA of student #2 is 4.8% HIGHER than the better performing student #1. So why on earth is student #2 being rewarded for poor performance? I don’t need to emphasize how big a 4.8% difference is for AQ at UBC or any school for that matter.
(Please note in the last paragraph when I referred to year 2 for student #1, I realize student #1’s year 2 was dispersed over two calendar years, but I’m referring to that as year 2 because of credit progression, ie it is still credits 31-60 in a 120 credit degree.)
Definitively speaking, no one can really say that student #2 deserves a higher AQ than student #1, because in terms of grades in all year levels, student #1 outperformed #2.
This example uses two students, but of course, this could be happening on a larger scale, where large pools of higher performing students are getting lower AGPAs compared to their lower performing counterparts who are receiving higher AGPAs.
Not having a credit minimum to define a year is a systematic flaw that rewards poor performance.
Thank you for your feedback. The AGPA is applied the same way to all applicants. Some applicants, due to the way their credits and grades are distributed, will see a greater difference between their OGPA and AGPA than other applicants. Please keep in mind that this would be true even if we instituted a minimum credit requirement for the lowest year. Some applicants would still have a year removed that is quite a bit lower than their other years, boosting their AGPA more, while others would have a year removed that is only slightly worse than their other years, boosting their AGPA less.
The AGPA is meant to ameliorate work that may not be representative of an applicant’s overall performance. We recognize that some applicants may experience a drop in grades over one term or year due to adjustment issues, health concerns, family problems, or other reasons. The AGPA gives us an opportunity to get a picture of the applicant’s potential without the inclusion of these less-representative grades.