Which UMAT candiate would perform better in your opinion?

[Deceitful Wings]

In general, with people who have scored 90%tile+ in the past, do they tend smash one particular section and alright in the other sections, or decent in all of them (but not necessarily smash one section)?
Hope this isn't too ambiguous lol 

[pi]

Depends on what you define as a genius and "quite decent" haha.

It'd be close. The genius is like ~100 for one section and mid-40s for the other two; whilst the "quite decent" one gets 60s for all sections. So pretty close imo.

[Deceitful Wings]

Depends on what you define as a genius and "quite decent" haha.

It'd be close. The genius is like ~100 for one section and mid-40s for the other two; whilst the "quite decent" one gets 60s for all sections. So pretty close imo.

Yep pretty much which one do you reckon tended to be a common occurrence in monash med students? (since you go there )

[pi]

Depends on what you define as a genius and "quite decent" haha.

It'd be close. The genius is like ~100 for one section and mid-40s for the other two; whilst the "quite decent" one gets 60s for all sections. So pretty close imo.

Yep pretty much which one do you reckon tended to be a common occurrence in monash med students? (since you go there )

Most seem to have good S1 and S3, and a poor S2. The "geniuses" (eg. Illuminati from AN) has a 90+ S1 and S3 or something huge like that (he didn't need his S2 at all to get an interview).

[Stick]

It's interesting that section 2 seems to be the worst section for the brighter students, but it isn't very surprising. I wonder why section 2 isn't weighted more by universities, because it would help choose some really good people for medicine.

[pi]

It's interesting that section 2 seems to be the worst section for the brighter students, but it isn't very surprising. I wonder why section 2 isn't weighted more by universities, because it would help choose some really good people for medicine.

By "good" you mean "lucky"?

[Stick]

What do you mean by this? Don't we want doctors with good people skills?

[pi]

What do you mean by this? Don't we want doctors with good people skills?

Yes, that's what the interview is for Section 2 is widely regarded as a section where you need a bit of luck in guesswork to get a good score

[Stick]

I see.

[paulsterio]

I reckon generally you'll need two strong sections to do well in the UMAT - it's hard to get away with one really strong section and two weaker sections just in my opinion unless you're extremely strong and by that I mean 100+ strong.

What do you mean by this? Don't we want doctors with good people skills?

If you think section 2 measures people skills you're pretty off the money - it's like what pi says, a bit of luck and basically how well you can read. Either way, people skills are developed over time.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[????]

No way if you can't differentiate between two synonyms how do you expect to understand people? 

My plan. Gun section 1 and 3 and hope the best for section 2. 

[shinny]

No way if you can't differentiate between two synonyms how do you expect to understand people? 

My plan. Gun section 1 and 3 and hope the best for section 2. 

It works. Got 60 percentile in section 2 and still managed a 98 percentile overall

[paulsterio]

No way if you can't differentiate between two synonyms how do you expect to understand people? 

My plan. Gun section 1 and 3 and hope the best for section 2. 

Worked for me too, and also for Thushan and Illuminati - good plan

[????]

off topic but does raw score 70 give 100% percentile? I myself aiming for 80.

[pi]

off topic but does raw score 70 give 100% percentile? I myself aiming for 80.

70 is 99%ile, 74 is 100%ile based off last year

80 is a huge score btw, only illuminati has got that from AN