Admissions Blog

NAQ Myths Debunked – Part 2

By wong79 on Dec 17, 2014 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.   Permalink | 10 Comments

Holiday Closure

By wong79 on Dec 16, 2014

The Admissions Office will be closed from December 24 at noon until January 1 (we will reopen January 2). During the closure, we will not be here to answer emails or phone calls. Please contact us before the holidays if you have questions or need help.

Best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season!

Permalink | No Comments

NAQ Myths Debunked – Part 1

By wong79 on Dec 15, 2014

Hi everyone! We have a confession; from time to time we take a peek at the Premed 101 Forums to get a sense of how many of you are doing and to see if there is anything we can help to clarify. From the chatter over the last couple weeks, we’ve realized that there are many misconceptions floating around the internet, and thought that we would take this opportunity to try and give you some more information about how to write your NAQ application so that you can maximize your score. Also, we hope this provides those of you who were not offered an interview an idea of how to assess yourself and improve for next year, if you are considering reapplying.

We’ re sorry if we’re putting a few of you on the spot, but since Premed 101 is anonymous we’ve decided to pull a few especially problematic speculations about our scoring system and ensure the information you receive is correct. We have a lot of information to share, so this blog post will be split into two parts. Today we’ll focus on concerns around NAQ Wording, and later this week, we’ll share some information about NAQ Scoring.

 

NAQ Wording

“…it’s not important to focus on each EC activity; it’s more about the theme. The reviewers don’t spend hours, let alone several minutes (I have a friend who was a reviewer) on the apps. They’re looking for keywords, themes, and commitment to your work.”- PM101

We are not looking for themes or keywords in your application. What we are looking for is evidence of long term commitments within your community. As you can imagine, there is an obvious difference in commitment, between someone who has volunteered with a homeless shelter for 600 hours over 5 years, and someone who has volunteered with the same organization for 40 hours over 8 months. Even if both of these applicants use the same keywords, the two entries demonstrate significantly different levels of involvement. NAQ evaluators will pick this out no matter how you try to dress up your wording. We also value variety, so you do not need to commit to any one theme. As long as you are committed, on an ongoing basis, to employment or volunteer work (or both) that you find meaningful, this will help contribute to a better score.

That being said, shorter term commitments and extra-curricular interests, such as hobbies, are considered as part of the evaluation, so it is important to be as clear as possible when describing each activity. There are no points awarded for having a theme or narrative. Involvement, commitment, growth, and the ability to go outside your comfort zone are much more important.

 

“I think the wording did contribute as well because I spoke with a bunch of friends who have gotten accepted to UBC. They all mentioned that the wording is very important. Basically from what I gather they look for certain words that describe a physician in the descriptions of each activity.” –PM 101

This is not correct. We do not want you to describe how you are like a physician in your descriptions. What we would like is that you provide a clear, accurate description of what you did in that activity/position. Clarity and accuracy are most important here. We understand that you would like to emphasize that you worked with others, were in caring role, etc., but this will be clear to us from your description.

 

“It seems like everyone swears by CANMED roles, maybe I should have used it when crafting my 150 character responses.” –PM 101

You do not need to reference any CanMEDS competencies in your descriptions. This will just waste space and make your entry more abstract and less clear. CanMEDS are skills expected of fully qualified physicians. While other schools may ask you to comment on them, UBC does not expect these of pre-medical students. There is, of course, some cross over between the qualities we look for and the CanMED competencies, but the connection is not any greater than that.

 

One last note:

Please do not exaggerate your role or commitment to a particular activity. Provide as much detail as you can in the limited space available, but write about what you actually did and what you accomplished. If you are trying to think about how to improve your application, look at the types of experiences you have had and ask what they say about you? If someone was reading your application for the first time, how might they interpret your leadership ability, service ethic, capacity to work with others, the diversity of your experiences, and your high performance achievements? These can be demonstrated in paid or unpaid positions. Also, think about other people you admire. How do they demonstrate these same qualities? How might you emulate them and take your experiences to the next level? We hope this helps you to think outside of the box and improve your application for next year, should you choose to reapply.

Permalink | 2 Comments

Interview Notifications Sent

By Admissions on Dec 04, 2014

We have sent all of the interview notifications. Congratulations to everyone who received an invite! For applicants who received regrets, we know that it is very disappointing news, but we hope you continue to take pride in your academic and non-academic accomplishments. Unfortunately, the limitations we have on the number of people we can interview and the competitiveness of the applicant pool mean that even applicants with very good grades or impressive non-academics may not make the cutoff. We wish all the best to these applicants as they continue their educational, professional and community activities.

Permalink | No Comments

Pre-Interview Scores & FAQs, 2014/2015

By Admissions on Dec 01, 2014

Applicants who are not invited to interview may want additional feedback on their 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 computer 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, you may be concerned that your AQ score is different from previous applications. However, to reiterate, if your averages are correct, your score is correct. Academic scores, like non-academic scores, are standardized against the current applicant pool, which changes from year to year.

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.

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 application (this only affects reapplicants), 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

I received a Regrets, No Interview letter with my academic and non-academic scores. Can I get more information on the definition of these scores?
We cannot provide any further details or specifics regarding the results of your file evaluation, but please review descriptions above and read our Evaluation Criteria page, which explains the scoring in more detail. You may also find it helpful to review the Interim Statistics on our Statistics page to assist you in determining the competiveness of your file.

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.

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 on-line application 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 & 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 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 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. Academic scores, like non-academic scores, are standardized against the current applicant pool. You can check your AQ score by seeing that if your average (either OGPA or AGPA, if applicable) is correct, your score is correct. This was done automatically and uniformly for all applicants.

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.

I thought I should have been eligible for the Adjusted Academic Average 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 online 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). 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%/80% 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 80% 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.

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

Permalink | No Comments