UMAT Results Graphs for 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011

UMAT2008 Scores and Percentile Ranks.doc

UMAT 2007 Results Graphs.doc


CLICK THE ABOVE 2 LINES to access the attachments!

Hey everyone. For those of you out there who are sitting the UMAT for the first time and are unsure of what your results are going to look like on the graph they send you I have ATTACHED a copy of the 2007 and 2008 Graphs for the Overall scores/percentile ranks (ie. Where you stand in relation to everyone else) and for each individual section as well. For example, you may have done really well in section 1 and 2 and scored in the 90th %ile but may have sucked in section 3 and scored in the 20th% ile. You would get your raw score for these sections (for eg. in 2007 it would be 62,59,44) and you would average them out (62+59+44 = 165...165/3 = 55) Therefore, you would receive an overall of 55. Take this number to the overall score graph and you would be able to see where you stand on average with EVERYONE who sat the test for that year.

Ps. you don't have to do that when you get your results, because they tell you exactly what your raw scores are for each section (eg. S1 55; S2 57; S3 64; Overall 59) and then if you're interested you check on the graph what percentile you're in.

PPS. Have a little look at the graphs and then get on to 'nottellingu's' forum for "Guess your UMAT Score for each section" and have a go at guessing what you think you'll get!!!!!

Also, be sure to have a look at what the general trends are in the graphs for each year and how steep the slopes are. That will give you an indication of how hard the exam was for that year/how well people performed. A really steep gradient means that people generally did really well and therefore getting a few extra Q's right for example going from a score of 55 for one section to 57 would mean a large jump in your overall %ile, or in other words, how well you did in relation to everyone else.

Hope you find it interesting!

thanks dude
guess s1 has been consistently relatively hard

The gradients for section 2 & 3 are freaking steep...not a good thing. Section 1 scores seemed to be spread out more.

Originally Posted by nottellingu

The gradients for section 2 & 3 are freaking steep...not a good thing. Section 1 scores seemed to be spread out more.

Yeah, but that is only true for the 2007 scores...the 2008 scores are different. It seems people found section 1 and 2 easier in 2008, but section 3 harder.

Hmmz similar thread posted up for the 2008 %tile and scores: http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/...ead.php?t=8897

you reckon we should merge the threads?

Originally Posted by Chezza

Hmmz similar thread posted up for the 2008 %tile and scores: http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/...ead.php?t=8897

you reckon we should merge the threads?

Yea why not? Im sure moddyratter will get to it

Originally Posted by nottellingu

Yea why not? Im sure moddyratter will get to it

lol slam

Woops Wrong Thread!

I see so from these graphs, if were to get say s1: 95%, s2: 20%, s3: 95%, that would be scores of around 65,65, 40. This averages to about 57. If i have an atar of about 99.4, would these get me interviews for medicine?

Originally Posted by Ch1n

I see so from these graphs, if were to get say s1: 95%, s2: 20%, s3: 95%, that would be scores of around 65,65, 40. This averages to about 57. If i have an atar of about 99.4, would these get me interviews for medicine?

20% in S2 will not give u a 65... But ur general idea is correct