UNSW UMAT scores for interview. (1 Viewer)

[KFunk]

Hey guys, I posted this in the MX2 forum earlier but I figured that it'd be a helpful thing to have here. This table lists "the minimum predicted UAI and actual UMAT scores that applicants needed to achieve to be offered an interview in the main round of interviews (September) over the past two years" for UNSW medicine.

Actual UMAT....|......Predicted UAI required for offer of main round interview
....152.............|.........................................100.0
....169.............|......................................... 99.5
....176.............|......................................... 99.0
....192.............|......................................... 98.0
....210.............|......................................... 97.0
....225.............|......................................... 96.0
....237.............|......................................... 95.0


http://notes.med.unsw.edu.au/home/medweb.nsf/website/2.2.latestnews_local

 

[RyBo]

im not bitchin, but its scary how you can compensate for a whole 2 years of cruising through/ studing moderately in high school by doing well in one test.

BTW, thanks KFunk.

 

[Lexicographer]

Heh, even I didn't get a UMAT that high (my fake prediction was 95.00)...

I guess with a little more work...

 

[stargaze]

Heh, even I didn't get a UMAT that high (my fake prediction was 95.00)...

I guess with a little more work...

95.00 refers to?

 

[velox]

His predicted UAI on the UNSW form.

 

[Zali]

Is the actual umat score the total of the percentiles from each section

 

[velox]

No, its the combination of the scaled scores. In which case 200+ is bloody hard =/

 

[inasero]

not really. you just need to score on average better than 70% of candidates.

 

[velox]

Score wise it is. That was what i was talking about.

 

[Zali]

So when they scale it what do they do? i no they do it so that they can compare umat scores from year to year but is it like HSC where say the top mark is 94 it get moves up to 100 and every 1 below that's marks are adjusted i dont really get it

 

[Lexicographer]

I don't know. It was my understanding that the scaling algorith and procedures are among ACER's closely guarded secrets.

 

[inasero]

nobody knows the scaling procedures-

by the way velox any way you look at it scoring better than 70% of people in the raw marks, scaled marks, or percentiles is the same thing, and what i was saying is that it's not 'bloody hard' as you suggested

 

[velox]

Didn't lexi get 285 percentiles combined? And get a score of 207? Unless there is heaps of people between 200 and 207, i stand by my original post.

 

[Bob.J]

yeh lexi GUNNED the umat
it seems that getting a score over the 200 mark is quite difficult...

oh well.. as longas you get an interview it's all good

 

[Lexicographer]

206 actually.

And you can't use my performance as a standard because my mean rank was 95, whereas people are offered interview with much lower means (ie 80+).

 

[velox]

Yes i know i was just debating that point with inasero.

 

[Lexicographer]

Hmm I'd have to say I'm leaning to agreement with him, but not completely disagreeing with you. It IS hard to do well (in the sense that "hard" means "difficult for most") but not THAT hard. You just need to think about the problems the right way.

 

[velox]

But the flaw in that argument is that the skills tested in the umat are intrinsic and can't be improved *much* by studying. So i guess its more of the case that 'one mans meat is another mans poison' if you somehow mould that concept around umat scores .

 

[Lexicographer]

They can't be improved at all by studying.

They CAN be improved (refined, actually) by PRACTICE.

 

[velox]

Yes, treading on a fine line there.