Myth about MCAT?

decafplease said:

There seems to be a thought in the premed community that each person can only improve their score so much, that you walk into your prep course or start your studying with a predetermined range that you can score, and that's it. Kind of the "I did my best and got a 29" sort of thing.

Is that true? If I REALLY work for a 35+, can I do it? If my practice exams aren't in that range, if I study more and test more, will my score improve? I'd like to think that's the way it is, but I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion.

So here it is:

Is there a MCAT score ceiling for each student? If so, what determines the ceiling?

Click to expand...

I think so, especially for the Verbal portion if you start out with a 6 on verbal, chances are you arent gonna improve that to a 12 range. You can always work to maximize your score, but chances are if you start with a 20 no matter how much work you put in your not gonna be in the 37+ range. As far as going from a 29 to a 35+?? Its definitely possible especially with all the stories you heard from ppl averaging 36 and end up with a 20 something on the real deal.

I think there is as well; the very nature of the test almost ensures that. All the studying in the world (IMO) will not get you a perfect score. Some people, i think, are just gifted enough to get score X. I am not saying studying is not worth it - by all means, the confidence it will help built alone is worth every second of your time. But I do feel there is a ceiling, in part determined by the people who take the test when you do, and in part determined by, as i said, the nature of the test, which does not really allow complete knowledge of all the material.

I think that it only partially true OP. It's true that some people have greater intellectual capacity. However, a majority of the people have put a great deal of thought into whether they want to go to med school or not. As such, most people taking the MCAT are of higher intellect and can score exceptionally high. However, this is directly effected by the amount of determination one has as well as how much effort they are willing to put into studying. A large number of people can score high on the MCAT if they tried hard enough.

You always hear those crazy stories of people increasing their scores by 10 points or something.....but honestly....of all the people I've ever personally talked to, they've stayed within 3 points of their original score upon retake.

decafplease said:

Ok, I need to clarify. I'm not talking about retakes. I was using the 29 as an example of someone who is explaining their low-ish score with a "I did my best" type of answer.

I'm also not really referring to the VR, since you can't "study" VR. As for VR, I think that's a talent, not a skill. Talents can be skills but skill isn't always based on talent. The rest of the exam is based on skill, I believe.

So what I mean to say, I suppose, do you think that some people really just can't score above a 30-whatever on the MCAT, or do you think that score is directly related to amount of effort given? Not to say that everyone starts on an even field, but rather, most people get a 35+ if they work hard enough?

Click to expand...

I do believe many ppl cant score above a 30 no matter how much effort they put in. I had one guy at my school, fairly smart guy 3.6 Gpa, works his butt off for everything. He studied for 6 months for hours each day and only got a 26. Thankfully he got into his first choice DO school, but I do believe that only certain ppl can break the 30 mark, its just the nature of the beast. I would guess that most ppl that end up taking the MCAT are probably have IQs 80% or higher, and a 30 puts you in the 75-78%, so basically if you score a 30 you beat out 75-78% of very intelligent ppl, and not everyone can do that.

decafplease said:

So, a practical question is, if you want a certain score (I'm not saying a 40; for some it might be 30+, for others, 35+) and you aren't getting consistent scores in that range on your practice exams... do you wait to take the test and reevaluate your studying, or accept that you've hit your ceiling?

Click to expand...

I do pretty well for myself in academics and being content / accepting my current level of proficiency isn't what did that for me. Re-evaluate, re-do, repeat. That's my suggestion to anyone and everyone wanting to do better in anything.

Does everyone have a ceiling? Probably something akin to a ceiling I suppose. But, if you stop working how do you know if you've reached it?

decafplease said:

I'm also not really referring to the VR, since you can't "study" VR.

Click to expand...

Only a minor point, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this. You definitely can study for verbal.

EDIT: Unless you meant in the classical sense of 'learning material'. In which case ignore me. It's 11:30 and I'm bored.

tncekm said:

I do pretty well for myself in academics and being content / accepting my current level of proficiency isn't what did that for me. Re-evaluate, re-do, repeat. That's my suggestion to anyone and everyone wanting to do better in anything.

Does everyone have a ceiling? Probably something akin to a ceiling I suppose. But, if you stop working how do you know if you've reached it?

Click to expand...

That's a fantastic viewpoint and the reason that one can score high if they want to.

There are always going to be exceptions to everything. There's always going to be someone who studied for hours each day and scored below a 30 and there will always be someone who studied for a couple hours 3-4 days a week and scored extremely well. I believe that people don't have a ceiling, but there are limiting factors that can stop a person from scoring as high as they can. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I don't think so.

MirrorTodd said:

That's a fantastic viewpoint and the reason that one can score high if they want to.

There are always going to be exceptions to everything. There's always going to be someone who studied for hours each day and scored below a 30 and there will always be someone who studied for a couple hours 3-4 days a week and scored extremely well. I believe that people don't have a ceiling, but there are limiting factors that can stop a person from scoring as high as they can. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I don't think so.

Click to expand...

So basically everyone has the ability to score over 40 they just have to find the right way to study?? not sure I believe that one

decafplease said:

I'm liking the way this is going for the past few posts. That's pretty much what I think, but I've encountered so many people who just kept getting 28's on the practice exams and even though they wanted that 35, just went, "Well, that's as good as it gets." I'm not saying they are wrong, just maybe could have gotten than 35 if they worked smarter AND harder.

I'm preparing my plan of action for next summer, I'm taking the Kap course until Aug, then planning on taking the test in Sept. If I can't pull it above a 35 on the practice tests past-midway in the course, I'm going to reevaluate and work on it until the test date. If I still can't score in the range, I'll probably take the MCAT in 09, after I've figured out what the heck is going on. *crossing fingers*

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good plan, but not trying to scare you, this is my personal experience. I was scoring around a 34 on the practice MCATs with a high of 37 and a low of 32 (not counting the first 2), but almost always 34 or 35 with a few 33s. Somehow I got a 31 on the real thing scoring 10s on the sciences which I only did once on any science section, (on the BS section of AAMC4 I think). Thank God my verbal stayed where It usually was though!

I also read somewhere on here about a guy saying he was usually at a 36-37 and ended up with a 28 on the real deal. Maybe we just had a hard test or got really unlucky.

On a more positive note, I do think if you score 35s consistently on the Practice tests you will PROBABLY score a 33+ and will be almost guaranteed a score of 30+. If you can pull a 33 or higher, as long as everything else is great, you can be competitive at any Med school in the nation (minus washington Univ, but thats another story, haha)

decafplease said:

There are so many stories out there. I'll be happy with something around a 35, +/-, just want to give myself the best chance I can.

The crazy story I heard was a guy was getting around 35's on practice tests and got a 42 on the real deal. I guess we do the best we can and get what we get. I certainly wouldn't retake with a 33!! I don't know that I would retake with a >30. Not worth the stress and trouble, unless I know that it was circumstances (ie vomiting my brains out or something) that caused the lower score.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly how I felt about it, I dont know if I could muster up the energy to restudy for this thing. Just hope you're that first guy, man that would be so nice. Good luck!

amwatts0322 said:

So basically everyone has the ability to score over 40 they just have to find the right way to study?? not sure I believe that one

Click to expand...

Sometimes you gotta have a little faith in human capability. If people can work their bodies to get them in some seriously ridiculous shapes, then why can't someone work their mind to get some ridiculous results. I said earlier that determination effects this as well. I feel that it depends on how much people are willing to sacrifice. Most people aren't willing to do enough for that high score (myself possibly included). I don't see a reason why a person of above average intelligence, which is what most of us are here, can't score high. The material is basic college level stuff. As far as I know, they don't test any of the higher level concepts on the MCAT, i.e relativity or p-chem stuffs.

MirrorTodd said:

Sometimes you gotta have a little faith in human capability. If people can work their bodies to get them in some seriously ridiculous shapes, then why can't someone work their mind to get some ridiculous results. I said earlier that determination effects this as well. I feel that it depends on how much people are willing to sacrifice. Most people aren't willing to do enough for that high score (myself possibly included). I don't see a reason why a person of above average intelligence, which is what most of us are here, can't score high. The material is basic college level stuff. As far as I know, they don't test any of the higher level concepts on the MCAT, i.e relativity or p-chem stuffs.

Click to expand...

Tell that to my non existent abs!!!!

decafplease said:

Wow. Crazy.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's intense eh?
Realisitically, everyone's 'intentional effort' ceiling is about a 14. Past that, it's a combination of luck, time of day, content of exam...it's only 1-2 questions to go from 15 to 14 on every section, and probably only another 1-2 questions to go for 13.

If you are hitting 12-14 with mostly 13s and 14s, you should probably relax a bit, and just keep up your current skill level. Working your ass off to try and consistently get 15s is fruitless. In my mind, if someone can get a 14, they are fully capable of getting a 15 on a different day.

amwatts0322 said:

So basically everyone has the ability to score over 40 they just have to find the right way to study?? not sure I believe that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like a good plan, but not trying to scare you, this is my personal experience. I was scoring around a 34 on the practice MCATs with a high of 37 and a low of 32 (not counting the first 2), but almost always 34 or 35 with a few 33s. Somehow I got a 31 on the real thing scoring 10s on the sciences which I only did once on any science section, (on the BS section of AAMC4 I think). Thank God my verbal stayed where It usually was though!

I also read somewhere on here about a guy saying he was usually at a 36-37 and ended up with a 28 on the real deal. Maybe we just had a hard test or got really unlucky.

On a more positive note, I do think if you score 35s consistently on the Practice tests you will PROBABLY score a 33+ and will be almost guaranteed a score of 30+. If you can pull a 33 or higher, as long as everything else is great, you can be competitive at any Med school in the nation (minus washington Univ, but thats another story, haha)

Click to expand...

I 100% concur with you here, at least for much of the test-taker population. There is a ceiling for most test-takers. But many people never reach their ceiling because they either (a) don't go over their practice exams after they take them so they never learn from their mistakes, (b) don't put the hours into studying, (c) worry so much about memorizing facts and using flashcards that they don't pick up the test-taking skills they need, (d) they get bogged down on the facts and never absorb the concepts and logic, or (e) they lack confidence on the day of the exam and let the demons take their toll.

For the people who do everything they can and put their heart and soul into it just to hit that ceiling, I always feel horrible. You see how hard they work and their sincerity, but know that hitting 30 is going to be a fight. When they do hit their 30, there is nothing more satisfying as a teacher. When they don't, there is nothing as depressing. Luckily, it seems that these same people who get their 27 after six months of blood, sweat, and tears manage to do great in the admissions process (especially interviews) and generally land on their feet somewhere. It's a great process really, because the MCAT is not the end-all, be-all. Every year we have at least one 38-40 MCAT scorer who is one of those ceilingless people who cruise to a great MCAT score, but don't take preparing for the interview seriously, and it costs them.

You also hit on another great point and that is: the test is random. If I've come to learn anything by reviewing the scores of our students over the past year it's that there is a HUGE discrepency in their performance from exam to exam. Had you taken the July 24 exam, you likely got a low score. Had you taken the September 6 exam, you likely got a real score higher than your practice test maximum. There is no consistency from one exam to another, so your performance reflects luck-of-the-draw in terms of topics as much as it reflects your abilities. I really hate to say this, especially given what I do for a living, but it's just the facts. I believe there is a +/-4 factor in terms of performance. A person averaging 33 on the latest of our practice exams could get anywhere from 29 to 37 on the real thing, just based on what exam they happen to get. The statistics we've seen this year in terms of average TBR CBT score versus actual MCAT score have a bigger range than in the past, wth the range spreading in both directions. With fewer passages and questions than previous exams, the randomness factor seems more severe on the CBT than the old paper exam.

I do believe there are some people without a ceiling. They see the exam as a puzzle as much as a multiple choice test that impacts their future. They learn from their mistakes and figure out how to eliminate them. They have the ability to explain most anything. They never complain about the test. I think Q of Quimica, Broken Glass, Roadrunner and Drizz are examples of such people. There are more here at SDN I'm not thinking of, but these people amaze me everytime with a positive outlook on the academic process. When they miss a question (on those rare occassions), they embrace it with an "ahh, so that's how they did it."

But whether there is a ceiling or not, I have to mirror the comments of mirrortodd that you'll never know if you've hit that ceiling if you stop working.

Those are some good points there, but theoretically I think if a student is motivated about the subject material and spends as much time as some of the video game addicts spend with their games, it can be done (as in - the student may exceed the perceived 'limit' of his/her score).

There is no scientific evidence for the "limits" to processing power or ability in human beings, all such limits are somewhat used as excuses by students who do not really know how to learn.

BerkReviewTeach said:

You also hit on another great point and that is: the test is random. If I've come to learn anything by reviewing the scores of our students over the past year it's that there is a HUGE discrepency in their performance from exam to exam. Had you taken the July 24 exam, you likely got a low score. Had you taken the September 6 exam, you likely got a real score higher than your practice test maximum.

Click to expand...

See...this just isn't true in my experience. And I mean my own personal experience, not the experience of others. When I was doing my last 4 AAMC practice exams, my scores were very similar to my actual MCAT (Though the section scores varied slightly...I was usually getting 14 13 13). The trend in my AAMC scores went consistenly upward and stabilized for my last exams. I am confident that if I took the test 5 times, my scores would vary between 39 and 43, but mostly hit around 40 or 41.

I studied for this exam learning all of the material front to back and upside down...and not just the information, but also the concepts, how the concepts interrelate to each other, and how to grasp 'the big picture'. I learned cold ever piece of information in both the kaplan and princeton books, the AAMC concept list, and on all the practice exams I did (about 20)...but this was only the first half of my test preparation. If I had stopped there, I'm pretty sure that I'd be having the results that you describe in your post. my scores would probably wildly fluctuate between 33 - 37.

The rest of my preparation went into learning how to beat the exam itself. Learning how to eliminate incorrect answers, devising a system to finish problems at breakneck speed without doing almost ANY calculations, and using almost no paper. I went through all of my AAMC practice exams and realized that there are certain types of problems that come back again and again, and again. If you see this, you begin to see that AAMC also makes their answer choices in a certain way. Thus, on some problems even if you don't have a good grasp on the material, you can eliminate answers to get the problem right.

For instance, on my real MCAT there was a question that had some organic macromolecule with a bunch of acetyl-ester groups. The question asked something that sounded really complicated and finished with, 'Which of the Acteyl groups, either A, B, C, or D would be cleaved?' I had NO IDEA what they were talking about. But because I knew that the MCAT likes to test about carbonyl carbon electrophilicity, I realized that the answer was probably the acetyl groups that were all the same and had the most positive carbonyl group. I'm sure that I got that question right. And it wasn't because I knew the material, it's because I spent alot of hours figuring out the system used by the MCAT test makers; how the exam is structured, how AAMC formulates questions, and the methods that AAMC uses to trick students. It really didn't have much to do with 'intelligence' (whatever that is!).

Once you figure out the test itself, I don't think there is a ceiling. If you look at the MCAT problems 95% of them really are not that hard if you know the basic material pertaining to the question. There is always those 1-2 questions, however, that ask a question that expects you to use information and integrate it in a utterly novel way. Those are the curve breaking questions where knowing how the test questions are constructed can win you points, but where having memorized the material won't help you.

So I dunno. Maybe our experiences are just different so we have different views...but in my mind, if there is a ceiling, it's just because the test is graded such that only a certain number of people can get a certain scaled score.

decafplease said:

Ok, I need to clarify. I'm not talking about retakes. I was using the 29 as an example of someone who is explaining their low-ish score with a "I did my best" type of answer.

I'm also not really referring to the VR, since you can't "study" VR. As for VR, I think that's a talent, not a skill. Talents can be skills but skill isn't always based on talent. The rest of the exam is based on skill, I believe.

So what I mean to say, I suppose, do you think that some people really just can't score above a 30-whatever on the MCAT, or do you think that score is directly related to amount of effort given? Not to say that everyone starts on an even field, but rather, can most people get a 35+ if they work hard enough?

Click to expand...

I studied for verbal. I got a 6 on the VR on my first diag, and I got pissed and went out and bought ExamKrackers 101 and some other books with VR tests in them, and I went to town. A full-length VR section, timed, almost every day for a month leading up to the MCAT. I got to where I was consistently scoring 10+, and got an 11 on the real thing. It's not the same kind of studying that you do when you sit down and memorize krebs cycle intermediates, but you can certainly improve quite a bit.

The rest of my preparation went into learning how to beat the exam itself. Learning how to eliminate incorrect answers, devising a system to finish problems at breakneck speed without doing almost ANY calculations, and using almost no paper. I went through all of my AAMC practice exams and realized that there are certain types of problems that come back again and again, and again. If you see this, you begin to see that AAMC also makes their answer choices in a certain way. Thus, on some problems even if you don't have a good grasp on the material, you can eliminate answers to get the problem right.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. When I was being trained as an instructor by TPR, the master-trainer (or whatever he's called) was telling me that if we did this enough, we'd be able to narrow almost every question down to about 2 choices without even thinking about it. And sometimes you can eliminate every wrong answer right off the bat, without necessarily knowing the right one.

Vihsadas said:

See...this just isn't true in my experience. And I mean my own personal experience, not the experience of others. When I was doing my last 4 AAMC practice exams, my scores were very similar to my actual MCAT (Though the section scores varied slightly...I was usually getting 14 13 13). The trend in my AAMC scores went consistenly upward and stabilized for my last exams. I am confident that if I took the test 5 times, my scores would vary between 39 and 43, but mostly hit around 40 or 41.

I studied for this exam learning all of the material front to back and upside down...and not just the information, but also the concepts, how the concepts interrelate to each other, and how to grasp 'the big picture'. I learned cold ever piece of information in both the kaplan and princeton books, the AAMC concept list, and on all the practice exams I did (about 20)...but this was only the first half of my test preparation. If I had stopped there, I'm pretty sure that I'd be having the results that you describe in your post. my scores would probably wildly fluctuate between 33 - 37.

The rest of my preparation went into learning how to beat the exam itself. Learning how to eliminate incorrect answers, devising a system to finish problems at breakneck speed without doing almost ANY calculations, and using almost no paper. I went through all of my AAMC practice exams and realized that there are certain types of problems that come back again and again, and again. If you see this, you begin to see that AAMC also makes their answer choices in a certain way. Thus, on some problems even if you don't have a good grasp on the material, you can eliminate answers to get the problem right.

For instance, on my real MCAT there was a question that had some organic macromolecule with a bunch of acetyl-ester groups. The question asked something that sounded really complicated and finished with, 'Which of the Acteyl groups, either A, B, C, or D would be cleaved?' I had NO IDEA what they were talking about. But because I knew that the MCAT likes to test about carbonyl carbon electrophilicity, I realized that the answer was probably the acetyl groups that were all the same and had the most positive carbonyl group. I'm sure that I got that question right. And it wasn't because I knew the material, it's because I spent alot of hours figuring out the system used by the MCAT test makers; how the exam is structured, how AAMC formulates questions, and the methods that AAMC uses to trick students. It really didn't have much to do with 'intelligence' (whatever that is!).
Once you figure out the test itself, I don't think there is a ceiling. If you look at the MCAT problems 95% of them really are not that hard if you know the basic material pertaining to the question. There is always those 1-2 questions, however, that ask a question that expects you to use information and integrate it in a utterly novel way. Those are the curve breaking questions where knowing how the test questions are constructed can win you points, but where having memorized the material won't help you.

So I dunno. Maybe our experiences are just different so we have different views...but in my mind, if there is a ceiling, it's just because the test is graded such that only a certain number of people can get a certain scaled score.

Click to expand...

Great post and incredibly thorough approach. However, I have to disagree with your conclusion (bolded) insofar as it required a lot of raw "smarts" to recognize the patterns that ultimately facilitated your strategy. No way that everyone could discern the relationships and minutia that stood out to you.

As to the original question, some people are just smarter or more talented than others. However, for those of us who aren't absolutely brilliant, elbow grease can help us close the gap. Great post V!

hawk126 said:

Great post and incredibly thorough approach. However, I have to disagree with your conclusion (bolded) insofar as it required a lot of raw "smarts" to recognize the patterns that ultimately facilitated your strategy. No way that everyone could discern the relationships and minutia that stood out to you.

Click to expand...

Okay, I suppose you could make that argument stick...
Even if it seemed to be possible for me to see the patterns and distill the MCAT into a less complex system, I still argue that its possible for others to learn!

decafplease said:

What is that based on? wording or type of answer? Or just obviously wrong answers?

Click to expand...

I'm really not sure. He just told us that we'd be able to pick them out pretty easily.

Vihsadas said:

Okay, I suppose you could make that argument stick...
Even if it seemed to be possible for me to see the patterns and distill the MCAT into a less complex system, I still argue that its possible for others to learn!

Click to expand...

Too true, but would their results compare with yours? BTW... please accept me as your padawan for step 1?

hawk126 said:

Too true, but would their results compare with yours? BTW... please accept me as your padawan for step 1?

Click to expand...

Lol. That's a completely different ball game! Let's hope that I can devise some cool tricks for that test too. :/

Well people always ask if there's a 'ceiling' on the MCAT. I don't think there is a ceiling in terms of your own performance, but unfortunately the exam is scaled against other people. So if you start getting into the numbers above 38, then depending on only a FEW other people your score could feasibly vary from 37 to 41. I know that in a different year my real exam could have been anywhere from 38 to 43 probably.

Is there a ceiling? No, not really...Well, at least not until you get to about 36 or 37...Then you're getting close to the top 1%

Of course there is a ceiling, depending on the person taking it.

To use an extreme example, if you believe a person with downs syndrome is going to get a 40+ legitimately you are lying to yourself.

smeagol said:

Of course there is a ceiling, depending on the person taking it.

To use an extreme example, if you believe a person with downs syndrome is going to get a 40+ legitimately you are lying to yourself.

Click to expand...

Extreme examples are the exception, not the rule.
Most people who are preparing to take the MCAT are pretty smart, or at least, have the potential to be.

I believe there is definitely a ceiling for each person. However, I also think that 95% of the people who take the test are not at their ceiling. Verbal is often the deal breaker for some becaues it is difficult to improve. However, with persistence and practice I believe most people can get a 12+ on the sciences. If you truly understand the 4 science subjects you SHOULD get a 12+. If you aren't getting that, you either do not really understand the subjects comprehensively enough, or you need to work on your test-taking skills. People often fall into little traps despite knowing the material.

I guess that, too, contributes to this arbitrary ceiling though.

Vihsadas said:

Extreme examples are the exception, not the rule.
Most people who are preparing to take the MCAT are pretty smart, or at least, have the potential to be.

Click to expand...

I think most pre-meds are good at memorizing things, but only about 30% of them are actually smart. Smart, for me, means they can not only memorize material quickly, but understand it and innovate upon it.

littlealex said:

I think most pre-meds are good at memorizing things, but only about 30% of them are actually smart. Smart, for me, means they can not only memorize material quickly, but understand it and innovate upon it.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I think I used to give people a lot less credit than they deserve. I believe that people are smarter than we might give them credit for.

Well if 30% of premeds are smart, how do you expect MOST people to score 12+??? A 12 or higher puts you above the 90ith Percentile, meaining less than 10% of premeds actually score that 12+ in the sciences. If 30% are smart that would put some ppl in the 70% range which is a 9. You kind of have conflicting posts there, and I am not following your logic.

amwatts0322 said:

Well if 30% of premeds are smart, how do you expect MOST people to score 12+??? A 12 or higher puts you above the 90ith Percentile, meaining less than 10% of premeds actually score that 12+ in the sciences. If 30% are smart that would put some ppl in the 70% range which is a 9. You kind of have conflicting posts there, and I am not following your logic.

Click to expand...

Haha. That's if we assume that the MCAT measures intelligence.

Vihsadas said:

Haha. That's if we assume that the MCAT measures intelligence.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Vihsadas I am glad to see Iam not the only one suffering from post finals insomnia, this sucks

amwatts0322 said:

Agreed.

Vihsadas I am glad to see Iam not the only one suffering from post finals insomnia, this sucks

Click to expand...

It's hilarious in a ridiculously ironic and sad sort of way...have the time to sleep, can't sleep? Aw man...

amwatts0322 said:

Well if 30% of premeds are smart, how do you expect MOST people to score 12+??? A 12 or higher puts you above the 90ith Percentile, meaining less than 10% of premeds actually score that 12+ in the sciences. If 30% are smart that would put some ppl in the 70% range which is a 9. You kind of have conflicting posts there, and I am not following your logic.

Click to expand...

Exactly what Vihsadas said. I do not believe you have to be very smart to score well on the science. Just understanding the concepts, ALL of the concepts, should get you a 12+. I consider roughly 30% of the premeds to be smart, and sometimes I see a few that I think are too smart to just go into medicine without applying their talents in research.

Doctors acquire an enormous amount of knowledge and make decisions based on it. You definitely have to be somewhat intelligent, but the bar isn't that high. Your intelligence matters less than your personality; it is more important that you're caring and you love your job than that you're brilliant. The job rarely requires brilliance, only competence.

Well geeze, if you dont think most doctors are smart, I wonder what you think of everyone else.