We hope that you found NAQ Myths Debunked – Part 1 helpful. In Part 2, we will be focusing on issues and questions related to NAQ Scoring. Again we will highlight a few especially problematic speculations about our scoring system from the Premed 101 Forums, in order to provide more accurate information.
NAQ Scoring
“My application consisted mainly of research activities…Would this be something UBC does not value very much?”- PM101
Research-based work or volunteer experiences are considered on par with many other work and/or service-based activities, and can be a major component in a good score. Research is challenging because it is a vague category that encompasses a wide variety of activities, which is why an accurate description of what you did is important to us. We want to know what kind of work you performed so that we can appropriately value it. That being said, if all you have done is undergraduate lab research, you are less likely to have demonstrated strong diversity of experience, capacity to work with others, or leadership (if you do not have a dedicated leadership role). Very strong applicants score well in all categories. This is clearly outlined on our website, so it should not be a surprise.
Concern around research publications seems to be of particular significance to many applicants. It is important to note that no one activity is prioritized above others in our scoring, and this includes research publications. If you have 5 first author papers, we do find it very impressive and are glad you are interested in your field. However, we are also looking for a number of other traits, so having just research does not necessarily provide you with an above average NAQ score. If you have done this level of research, dedicated years of service to a number of disadvantaged or marginalized groups within your community, and have held significant leadership roles, your score will likely be better because of your combined experiences. To reiterate, we look for well-rounded, mature, compassionate, dedicated applicants.
“Actually, I think I might have a theory on how the NAQ is scored based on my observations of the limited data of the posts here: it seems possible that the NAQ score has at least a slight correlation on the applicant’s age and his/her standing in education–that is, an applicant in 3rd year is probably going to get higher score in NAQ in comparison to an applicant who has graduated and/or is in a graduate program with identical/similar activities.
This makes logical sense in a few ways: that UBC now has a “standard” profile of what to look for for applicants based on their years that isn’t going to be based on the type of activities or the hours spent. By this I mean that for an undergraduate, their experiences are going to be more of volunteering and part time jobs than a large amount of scientific journals/publications/research, etc. Obviously I don’t mean that undergraduates *don’t* have these experiences, it means that UBC takes into account what sort of activities a typical student will have rather than looking at unique experiences individually…
Again, just my own theory.”- PM101
We are very appreciative that this poster emphasized that this was just their theory, as it is not correct, and is a good example of why you should take all theories on this board with a grain of salt. We are not going to share our scoring breakdown, but would like to assure everyone that it is not overly complicated. Generally if you have done more, and have demonstrated meaningful, long-term commitments (including work) within your community, you will receive a higher score.
On why you may not have received an above-average NAQ score: We receive a lot of calls and emails from applicants, wanting to know why they received a score that was not reflective of their achievements. It is very important to note that you are not competing against the general population; you are competing against our (extremely accomplished) medical school applicant pool. We received over 2300 applications this year, many of which listed an amazing list of commitments and accomplishments. We have many of the most talented, well-rounded, and driven applicants in the country (I could say in the world, but that would also just be my theory). Unfortunately this means, that what may normally be considered excellent, may in fact be below average in comparison to our pool. We understand that this is very difficult to accept when you feel like you have put everything you are into your application, but please understand that a lower score does not mean that your accomplishments are not impressive or valuable; it does mean that you may not have done as much as others who have applied. Luckily this is an area that you can continue to strengthen and improve! We want you to know that we are often in awe of all of you. We can see how hard you have worked to get to where you are. Many of you have overcome incredible odds and were very close to receiving an interview invitation. We wish we could invite more of you.
“it’s also worrying because they use random arts and lay people to score our NAQ. that doesn’t bode well since I doubt that the average person is going to understand little nuances in NAQ like writing an abstract or proposal or literature review constitutes like 50% of the work in a research project, sometimes even more.”- PM101
We don’t mean to sound defensive here, but we can assure you that all NAQ evaluators, regardless of their academic background, are trained on how to assess common NAQ activities, such as research abstracts and literature reviews. However, the reality is that even if we hired a team of cell biologists or physicists, they would probably not also come with expert knowledge on running a rape crisis centre, or a nuanced understanding of the different levels of competitive swimming in North America. Not one NAQ evaluator is going to know everything about everything. We do work together to combine our knowledge and do our best to research any activities that we feel we need more information about. We will often request additional information from our applicants to help guide our decisions, as well as discuss activities with verifiers or field experts as needed. However, if there is very important information that you would like to ensure we have, it is ultimately up to you to add it in your activity description.
This doesn’t have much to do with the post, but I figured I would ask my question on the most recent post. I understand that if an applicants overall GPA drops by 5%, the admissions committee is allowed to revoke their offer. Does this apply to the overall GPA, or the Adjusted GPA? I just ask because my aGPA is quite high compared to my overall GPA.
It is based on the adjusted GPA if you were eligible for the AGPA when you applied. If you were not eligible for the AGPA, it is based on your overall GPA. We will recalculate the AGPA or OGPA with summer 2014, fall 2014 and spring 2014 coursework added in. If the resulting GPA has dropped by 5% or more compared to the AGPA/OGPA we calculated in the fall, the Admission Selection Committee may revoke the offer of admission.
I have a question about long-term commitments in communities. I am a bit of a non-traditional applicant: I have a BA from UofA, followed by 2.5 years of working full-time at a job that had travelling every other week for four months straight and months of evening events and weekend responsibilities. On top of that, I had a part-time job that I would work on the weekends I wasn’t busy with my full-time job. As such, dedicating myself to a regular volunteer schedule was difficult. After that, I lived in Calgary for a year, followed by Kelowna for two years (where I got my BSc), and now Toronto for a year and a half (where I am doing my MSc). While I have been active in my communities in all the places I have lived, nothing has been particularly long term, especially over the past five years, since I keep moving! Is this something that the admissions committee would take into consideration? For example, would the committee look at my involvement in student associations at all of the three schools I have attended as a sort of long-term committment?
Thank you for these posts, they are excellent!
We are glad you find the blog useful! Sorry for our delayed response. While we do notice long-term experiences within a single organization, we also pay attention to your overall history in terms of the depth and breadth of activities and commitment to those activities, and we understand that school, work, family responsibilities, moving, etc. may disrupt some activities.
I realize this is quite late from this thread, but I’m wondering if there is a way to indicate that long-term commitments were not possible due to consistently changing schedules and moving, etc. While I have friends who grew up in Vancouver and attended UBC who have been able to volunteer at one location for 5+ years, I have moved back and forth between 3 different cities over the past 7 years and for a large portion of time had an on-call job, which made regularly scheduled volunteering a near-impossibility (it would not have been fair given the frequent times I would have been forced to miss volunteering due to work). I understand that long-term volunteer work is admirable, but for some people it has never been a reality (I think this is particularly true for any applicant who went to university in a city separate from their hometown).
Is there a way to indicate that this was a factor in not having significant long-term activities, compared to many shorter-term activities?
There is an opportunity on the application to explain circumstances that have affected your academic and/or non-academic activities.
For re-applicants, would the NAQ section from the previous year be compared with the current NAQ section? Or would the admission committee only look at the NAQ section from the current cycle?
I was wondering about this because a few people have told me that the admission committee compares the previous years with the current year to see if there are improvements and the score will be based on that.. Your suggestion would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you very much!
We would normally only look at the current year. Your entries are evaluated fresh each year and the score is based on the current year’s evaluation, not on your previous score.
We all know that when we are filling our free time with service and other non-academic experiences, it isn’t easy to keep on top of them; so how you guys tell the difference between students who do exceptional amounts of activities only half heartedly, vs those who do slightly less but do an amazing job? I’m sure I could fit several more activities in where I do the least I can get away with, so how do you guys know which of those students you are letting in?
The NAQ section is self-reported and in isolation can’t tell us very much about an applicant’s quality of performance or motivation – these kind of assessments are better suited to references, and we do ask questions about performance and motivation on the reference forms. However, someone who does tons of activities but isn’t very committed to any of them will probably have a lot of entries with fewer hours, shorter time frames, and descriptions that reveal a lower level of involvement and/or responsibility.