20% of people with a GPA of 3.8+ but MCAT of 18-20 get accepted?

Superman78 said:

Regardless of their wonderful life stories, extracurricular activities and URM status, I wouldn't want a doctor who got an 18 on his MCAT operating on me. If he saved handicapped children from a burning orphanage in Zimbabwe and wrote an essay on that, I don't care - he should be a fireman instead. I don't care what his GPA was. Maybe he went to some fairytale school where everyone gets A's and the teachers sing carols and blow bubbles up your butt.

The MCAT isn't like the SAT's, it actually does test you on what you learned in all your pre-req classes. There are some basic strategies and tricks, but overall it's a fair test of your knowledge. You can't beat it just by enrolling in expensive prep courses and learning the "secrets". Prep courses are just super-accelerated lectures that pile the material on you in buckets. Assuming you're not someone who cracks under the pressure of a test (in which case maybe this isn't the profession for you), then the more you know, the better you'll do on the test.

Click to expand...

Have you even seen the MCAT? It has zero correlation with what kind of physician one will be. Just ask any doctor.

Alaska21 said:

Caribs that don't require an MCAT maybe?

Click to expand...

Uh, Carib admissions wouldn't be listed on an AAMC site or table. They're not governed by the AAMC.

hmmmmmmm.... i wonder if they are using ALL the MCAT scores an applicant has under his/her belt. for instance, someone could've scored 5-14 on his/her first try, but later scored 39/45 range later (ambitious, i know... but u get the point).

so yeah, this table might not be composite MCAT scores of applicants, but rather data from ALL the mcat sittings? who knows man.... getting in w/ scores that low is :O

gujuDoc said:

With the 5-14 MCAT distinction, Are you sure that is not a section with a 5 rather then a total MCAT score???

Click to expand...

Read the table. It says it's the total MCAT score.

This table reflects data for people who apply to US medical schools, not US allopathic schools in particular, so I would imagine that this reflects osteopathic applicants as well. I'm seriously not trying to diss anyone, but I think it's pretty well established that osteopathic schools tend to have lower avg MCAT scores than allo.

Although some of the numbers on this table are still pretty amazing... it sort of scares me that someone with a GPA of less than 2.0 and MCAT 15-17 stands a chance of becoming a doctor (albeit only a 4.5% chance).

virusgirl said:

This table reflects data for people who apply to US medical schools, not US allopathic schools in particular, so I would imagine that this reflects osteopathic applicants as well. I'm seriously not trying to diss anyone, but I think it's pretty well established that osteopathic schools tend to have lower avg MCAT scores than allo.

Although some of the numbers on this table are still pretty amazing... it sort of scares me that someone with a GPA of less than 2.0 and MCAT 15-17 stands a chance of becoming a doctor (albeit only a 4.5% chance).

Click to expand...

The AAMC oversees allopathic schools only. They wouldn't have the data for who got into osteopathic schools unless AACOM shared it with them and I don't see that happening.

That new AAMC chart has odds that even Lloyd Christmas could love.

The opportunity to misinterpret one's chances from this data is mind boggling.

I remember seeing a table like this on the AAMC website before I applied... I remembered thinking, wow my odds are pretty decent... then I laughed at myself and closed the window.

This chart should be the answer to all of the "What Are My Chances?" threads...(jk, I know that numbers only mean a little bit)

CRB 717 said:

I'm sure that particular applicant had an amazing background and extenuating circumstances, so stop being so quick to judge and jumping to conclusions, unless you're this guy:

Click to expand...

yeah i don't think we have a right to judge people we don't do. boo to that

but i am surprised how many people got in with that gpa and mcat. 20% is much higher than i thought.

Just Joshin said:

Have you even seen the MCAT? It has zero correlation with what kind of physician one will be. Just ask any doctor.

Click to expand...

Zero? Now, I'm willing to believe there are plenty of factors that go into being a good doctor that the MCAT is not great at measuring. But doing almost any job well is usually aided by motivation and intelligence, no less one that potentially involves lots of science and decison making.

Lokhtar said:

Put it in an excel graph real quick:

What does this mean? It seems that there is a big jump in acceptance when you reach 3.4 in your GPA. The jumps are smaller after that.

Meaning, it seems medical schools tend to look for a minimum of 3.4 as evidence of enough capability so that GPA isn't a huge hinderence. Obviously, higher the better as with anything else, but there isn't a huge difference after 3.6, and probably not worth worrying too much about improving your GPA once you hit that number.

MCAT, there is a big benefit of every point until about 32-33. Then it starts to drop off, so much s othat after 36, there seems to be very little benefit in getting that extra point and not worth worrying about improving the MCAT after 35.

What does this mean from strategy? If your GPA is below 3.4, you should first spend some time to get it up to that point. After that, if you have a choice between GPA and MCAT, your best bet is to focus on the MCAT until it is around 33. Conversely, if your MCAT is 33+, then your highest yield might be spending a year and trying to get your GPA to 3.4. If your GPA is already a 3.6, and/or your MCAT is a 33, you should focus on another part of your application.

3.6 and 35 seem to be the points where you get diminishing returns, while 3.4 and 30 seem to be the 'big' jump points for minimum qualification.

Pretty much stuff we had guessed, but it seems to be validated by data.

Click to expand...

Awsome.

Your graph and comments are worth 1,000,000 SDN posts.

virusgirl said:

This table reflects data for people who apply to US medical schools, not US allopathic schools in particular, so I would imagine that this reflects osteopathic applicants as well. I'm seriously not trying to diss anyone, but I think it's pretty well established that osteopathic schools tend to have lower avg MCAT scores than allo.

Although some of the numbers on this table are still pretty amazing... it sort of scares me that someone with a GPA of less than 2.0 and MCAT 15-17 stands a chance of becoming a doctor (albeit only a 4.5% chance).

Click to expand...

Why does it scare you? Ya know, I am personally friends with several doctors, as in hang out in non-professional settings. And any one of them will tell you that the MCAT had absolutely no indication to how well they performed in medical school.

I think the improtant thing to take away from here, is that these are only NUMBERS. MCAT and GPA are simply a way for the Adcoms to make a judgement of you, because they do not have the time to spend weeks getting to know what kind of person you are and what your abilities might be. Even in a 30minute to 1 hour interview, you are putting on a show for them and they know that. I've interviewed employees that I thought were great, and once they actually got on the job their performance was terrible and they had to be terminated.

I find it almost laughable, that so many traditional pre-meds, many of whom have never had full time jobs in their entire lives are going into interviews for positions which will lead to them working 0 hours per week, to 60-100 hours per week in just 2-4 years. How does an ADCOM know even from a high GPA and a high MCAT score (5 hours of your life) that you are the kind of person who can handle 60-100hr/wk work loads?

"Numbers" are a small part of the game when it comes to the workforce and employment. Being "brilliant" is great, but if you cant get all of that s*it out of your head and apply it, or you cant handle the long hours, then all of your brilliance is completely useless. So I would say that someone who can show other qualities which SDN'ers value much less, like hard work(not volunteering), perserverance, integrity, etc... still have a shot (albeit not a high one) of getting into med school.

The pervasive SDN attitude is that if you aren't AT LEAST at a 3.7 and a 31.5 MCAT then you dont "deserve" to get into medical school. It's a truely pathetic attitude, and it's quite indicative of the age and immaturity of many of the posters here.

Lokhtar said:

Yea zero. All doctors have to pass the USMLE to graduate from a MD school, including the person who got a 12 on the MCAT. You can't pass the USMLE without having science knowledge - do you have any idea how hard that test is?

So if they can pass the USMLE, why does the MCAT have any relevance that is greater than zero when assessing physician ability?

Click to expand...

Ouch, and i just gave you such a nice compliment.

You seem to be arguing there is no explanatory power of the USMLE beyond a simple binary pass/fail.

You also seem to be arguing there is no explanatory power from a reasoning test beyond a knowedge based test.

Also, is the USMLE curved?

Strong disagre on the first, less so on the second, but still ...

ANF1986 said:

Why does it scare you? Ya know, I am personally friends with several doctors, as in hang out in non-professional settings. And any one of them will tell you that the MCAT had absolutely no indication to how well they performed in medical school.

I think the improtant thing to take away from here, is that these are only NUMBERS. MCAT and GPA are simply a way for the Adcoms to make a judgement of you, because they do not have the time to spend weeks getting to know what kind of person you are and what your abilities might be. Even in a 30minute to 1 hour interview, you are putting on a show for them and they know that. I've interviewed employees that I thought were great, and once they actually got on the job their performance was terrible and they had to be terminated.

I find it almost laughable, that so many traditional pre-meds, many of whom have never had full time jobs in their entire lives are going into interviews for positions which will lead to them working 0 hours per week, to 60-100 hours per week in just 2-4 years. How does an ADCOM know even from a high GPA and a high MCAT score (5 hours of your life) that you are the kind of person who can handle 60-100hr/wk work loads?

"Numbers" are a small part of the game when it comes to the workforce and employment. Being "brilliant" is great, but if you cant get all of that s*it out of your head and apply it, or you cant handle the long hours, then all of your brilliance is completely useless. So I would say that someone who can show other qualities which SDN'ers value much less, like hard work(not volunteering), perserverance, integrity, etc... still have a shot (albeit not a high one) of getting into med school.

The pervasive SDN attitude is that if you aren't AT LEAST at a 3.7 and a 31.5 MCAT then you dont "deserve" to get into medical school. It's a truely pathetic attitude, and it's quite indicative of the age and immaturity of many of the posters here.

Click to expand...

Whats the alternative?

xanthomondo said:

The are MANY, MANY better things I'd rather do with the money rather than taking the MCAT

Click to expand...

I think (hope) what was meant is that the students in BA/MD programs (at least, the one I am familiar with) must take the MCAT; they have no choice. Their score doesn't matter, but they must take the test. Therefore, they are "taking it just for fun."

I had quite a few close friends that scored quite miserably on the MCAT because they went in hungover never having even glanced at a practice exam, let alone taken one. Of course, these people took 18 hours each semester and carried a 3.9+, were amazingly smart, had sick EC's (even though they didn't need them, due to the BA/MD program), etc...

Realizing this, the acceptance rate for people with high GPA and low MCAT is likely inflated. If you take into account the students matriculating into an MD program from a BA/MD who must have a high GPA (3.5+ is the lowest I know of), yet require no minimum MCAT, you are left with quite a few people inflating this stat.

It just shows how much more important the MCAT is than GPA in the end. You can get in with a sick MCAT and a terrible/low/mediocre GPA, but the other way around is much more difficult.

Lokhtar said:

No, I am saying that if they know their medicine at a level high enough to pass the USMLE steps, residency and the boards, they are competent (knowledge wise), physicians. I think a person who does it and had a score of 14 is not necessarily different in ability from a person who had a score of 38.

Click to expand...

Thats a bold claim. I'm not saying intelligence is the only thing that matters in being a doctor. But intelligence aids any other qualities, compassion, dedication, creativity, social skills, etc., in being a good doctor, im sure less so in some fields than in others. the idea that there is some "knowledge competency" cut-off, after which differences in intelligence / effort don't matter seems pretty unrealistic to me ...

jult24er said:

Thats a bold claim. I'm not saying intelligence is the only thing that matters in being a doctor. But intelligence aids any other qualities, compassion, dedication, creativity, social skills, etc., in being a good doctor,

Click to expand...

Are you saying that people who score in the teens on the MCAT lack intelligence? Because I'll disagree with you. A lot of those 18-20 people had a 3.8-4.0 GPA. Say what you will about the schools, but no one will convince me every single one went to a school that gave away A's like candy. You don't get a 3.8-4.0 GPA without being intelligent.

These new AAMC stats broken down by race are revealing.

Look at the 2 ranges immediately below 3.0 GPA. In the 2.80-2.99 bracket, over the 3 year period there were 899 acceptees of all races, but of that amount, 470 or just over half were URM. The next bracket down, the URM percentage is a little higher (201 of 348 acceptees were URM). And so on...

So, if you are not URM, you should calculate your "chances" at the sub 3.0 level a little differently...

Another important point - these are aggregated numbers for 3 years, so when you look at the total number of acceptees of all races in the 2.80 to 2.99 range (899), that is an average of 300 per year out of approx 18,000 seats...despite what the percentages are indicating, not many people with a sub 3.0 GPA get into medical school...

ANF1986 said:

Why does it scare you? Ya know, I am personally friends with several doctors, as in hang out in non-professional settings. And any one of them will tell you that the MCAT had absolutely no indication to how well they performed in medical school.

I think the improtant thing to take away from here, is that these are only NUMBERS. MCAT and GPA are simply a way for the Adcoms to make a judgement of you, because they do not have the time to spend weeks getting to know what kind of person you are and what your abilities might be. Even in a 30minute to 1 hour interview, you are putting on a show for them and they know that. I've interviewed employees that I thought were great, and once they actually got on the job their performance was terrible and they had to be terminated.

I find it almost laughable, that so many traditional pre-meds, many of whom have never had full time jobs in their entire lives are going into interviews for positions which will lead to them working 0 hours per week, to 60-100 hours per week in just 2-4 years. How does an ADCOM know even from a high GPA and a high MCAT score (5 hours of your life) that you are the kind of person who can handle 60-100hr/wk work loads?

"Numbers" are a small part of the game when it comes to the workforce and employment. Being "brilliant" is great, but if you cant get all of that s*it out of your head and apply it, or you cant handle the long hours, then all of your brilliance is completely useless. So I would say that someone who can show other qualities which SDN'ers value much less, like hard work(not volunteering), perserverance, integrity, etc... still have a shot (albeit not a high one) of getting into med school.

The pervasive SDN attitude is that if you aren't AT LEAST at a 3.7 and a 31.5 MCAT then you dont "deserve" to get into medical school. It's a truely pathetic attitude, and it's quite indicative of the age and immaturity of many of the posters here.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you that numbers are not the entire package. As you say, there are other important qualities that can't be measured numerically, and I'm not trying to trivialize the significance of those qualities. However, medicine is an intellectually challenging field, and in addition to perseverance, integrity, etc., I do ultimately believe that doctors need to be smart.

I also understand that there are factors contributing to MCAT scores and GPA besides basic level of intelligence, which is why I DON'T think that medicine should only be for those with a 3.7 and a 31.5 (I don't have a 3.7, actually). But, if someone really blows both their GPA and their MCAT (such as the type of student I originally referred to, with a GPA < 2.0 and MCAT < 17), I would conclude that that student probably just isn't very smart -- or if they are smart, they have extremely poor study habits that preclude them from learning everything they need to. Extenuating circumstances can only explain so much poor academic performance. I don't expect my doctor to be a genius or the embodiment of perfection, but I would be very nervous about being treated by someone who did not, in my opinion, meet even a very low standard of academic success.

People also need to stop assuming that the characteristics of the different GPA and MCAT groups are the same. The applicants with lower numbers are probably applying to different schools from the applicants with higher numbers. The applicants with lower numbers may also be applying to more schools. The people with lower numbers who get in or who have the guts to apply may have more compelling ECs or may be better at interpesonal interactions (AKA the interview). Bottom line is that these percentages based on subgroups characterized by particular GPA and MCAT are only helpful for you if you are indeed like the typical person in these subgroups in these other characteristics--and that may or may not be true.

MedStudentWanna said:

Are you saying that people who score in the teens on the MCAT lack intelligence? Because I'll disagree with you. A lot of those 18-20 people had a 3.8-4.0 GPA. Say what you will about the schools, but no one will convince me every single one went to a school that gave away A's like candy. You don't get a 3.8-4.0 GPA without being intelligent.

Click to expand...

They lack something. The nice thing about the MCAT is, its curved. Im open to suggestions about what that something is, I'd say at least some component of intelligence + preperation, but if you've got other ideas, lets hear them ...

This is really depressing. I'm in the 7% of people with my GPA/MCAT combination that don't get accepted (barring a miracle in the near future).

Lokhtar said:

Put it in an excel graph real quick:

What does this mean? It seems that there is a big jump in acceptance when you reach 3.4 in your GPA. The jumps are smaller after that.

Meaning, it seems medical schools tend to look for a minimum of 3.4 as evidence of enough capability so that GPA isn't a huge hinderence. Obviously, higher the better as with anything else, but there isn't a huge difference after 3.6, and probably not worth worrying too much about improving your GPA once you hit that number.

MCAT, there is a big benefit of every point until about 32-33. Then it starts to drop off, so much so that after 36, there seems to be very little benefit in getting that extra point and not worth worrying about improving the MCAT after 35.

What does this mean from strategy perspective? If your GPA is below 3.4, you should first spend some time to get it up to that point. After that, if you have a choice between GPA and MCAT, your best bet is to focus on the MCAT until it is around 33. Conversely, if your MCAT is 33+, then your highest yield might be spending a year and trying to get your GPA to 3.4. If your GPA is already a 3.6, and/or your MCAT is a 33, you should focus on another part of your application.

3.6 and 35 seem to be the points where you get diminishing returns, while 3.4 and 30 seem to be the 'big' jump points for minimum qualification.

Pretty much stuff we had guessed, but it seems to be validated by data.

Click to expand...

Epic post here based on actual analysis based on data collected from the source, with as little anecdotal evidence as possible. Wish the rest of the posts on SDN would be more like this.

moneduloides said:

I think (hope) what was meant is that the students in BA/MD programs (at least, the one I am familiar with) must take the MCAT; they have no choice. Their score doesn't matter, but they must take the test. Therefore, they are "taking it just for fun."

Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I meant. Some programs will require the MCAT, but no specific score. Also, I know of some schools were the minimum GPA is 3.25 and one school where its 3.00.

jult24er said:

They lack something. The nice thing about the MCAT is, its curved. Im open to suggestions about what that something is, I'd say at least some component of intelligence + preperation, but if you've got other ideas, lets hear them ...

Click to expand...

Once again, you don't get a 4.0 in a science curriculum by being unintelligent.

OnlyNeedOneYes said:

This is really depressing. I'm in the 7% of people with my GPA/MCAT combination that don't get accepted (barring a miracle in the near future).

Click to expand...

You've interviewed at FIVE places, and none of them have rejected you. It would not be a "miracle" for you to be in the 93%. WashU will still be accepting lots of people and if you write love letters to Pitt they will probably let you in.

scarletgirl777 said:

You've interviewed at FIVE places, and none of them have rejected you. It would not be a "miracle" for you to be in the 93%. WashU will still be accepting lots of people and if you write love letters to Pitt they will probably let you in.

Click to expand...

I should put on my a** kissing boots and get to it...

OnlyNeedOneYes said:

I should put on my a** kissing boots and get to it...

Click to expand...

Sooner the better!

Kaydubz said:

What about the one person who got in with a 1.5-2 GPA and a 15-17 MCAT? That's like almost a D+ average

Click to expand...

connections...... they should make a table to see how many of those lower than average gpa/mcat people get in by their dads making a few phone calls...

MedStudentWanna said:

Once again, you don't get a 4.0 in a science curriculum by being unintelligent.

Click to expand...

I think you may both be getting at the same point. The MCAT seems to preferentially measure problem solving skills over knowledge. Your GPA seems to measure more of whether or not you know the material for the classes you take. Depending on your program of study, the measure of GPA may measure more or less of your problem solving skills.

MedStudentWanna said:

Once again, you don't get a 4.0 in a science curriculum by being unintelligent.

Click to expand...

In the last 3 years, there have been < 120 people with 3.8 - 4.0 and < 20 MCAT.

I'll give you 115 BA/MDs, 3 people at incredibley easy school / cheated, 2 who skipped a section, and one 9, 9, 1 guy from Senegal.

I don't know what I think about this table. It disturbed me.

rabidpanda13 said:

I don't know what I think about this table. It disturbed me.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by this?

Lokhtar's post with the graph and the explanation should replace the what are my chances forum.

NotAndrew said:

What do you mean by this?

Lokhtar's post with the graph and the explanation should replace the what are my chances thread.

Click to expand...

It made me think so many different things at once, I couldn't look at it too long...it's like the sun.

And yes i completely agree.

jult24er said:

In the last 3 years, there have been < 120 people with 3.8 - 4.0 and < 20 MCAT.

Click to expand...

...who have been accepted. There are close to 800 who applied. And who knows how many more who didn't apply. For you to assume all of those people are unintelligent is a huge stretch.

This thread is kind of spooky in a way. I feel like some artifact has been uncovered from a dig. What does it all mean?

I am not a statistics person, but I would have to say that the sample size is a bit small in comparison to the rest of the chart.

In the example by the OP, 20% of people with 3.8+ and and 18-20 MCAT get accepted. Looking at the chart, 99 people out of 515 got accepted from this category. But, looking at total applicants, there were 784 applicants at under 20 MCAT and 3.8+ GPA out of 23850 total in the 3.8+ range. This means that out of all the applicants, 3.29% had an MCAT of 20 or less and a GPA of 3.8+. Now, if we look at the total number of people who got accepted with a 3.8+, we see that MCAT scores of 20 and less make up 119 acceptees out of 17676, which equals .673%. So in reality, people who have an MCAT of under 20 make up only slightly more than half a percent of accepted people. I think that shows that your MCAT really makes a difference, regardless of what your GPA might be.

Moving to 29 and under with 3.8+, there are 5753 acceptances out of the 17676. This equals 32.5%. So this chart actually shows that with an MCAT score of 30, you still have only ~35% chance of getting accepted regardless of GPA.

I think that this is the most telling part of the chart, along with the excel graph. 20% of people is a lot, except when it is out of 515, and that 515 is out of 17676 total acceptances in the range. When you think about, 20% of 3.29% is not very significant in any way.

If I made a miscalculation, please correct me.

cubssox2000 said:

I am not a statistics person, but I would have to say that the sample size is a bit small in comparison to the rest of the chart.

In the example by the OP, 20% of people with 3.8+ and and 18-20 MCAT get accepted. Looking at the chart, 99 people out of 515 got accepted from this category. But, looking at total applicants, there were 784 applicants at under 20 MCAT and 3.8+ GPA out of 23850 total in the 3.8+ range. This means that out of all the applicants, 3.29% had an MCAT of 20 or less and a GPA of 3.8+. Now, if we look at the total number of people who got accepted with a 3.8+, we see that MCAT scores of 20 and less make up 119 acceptees out of 17676, which equals .673%. So in reality, people who have an MCAT of under 20 make up only slightly more than half a percent of accepted people. I think that shows that your MCAT really makes a difference, regardless of what your GPA might be.

Moving to 29 and under with 3.8+, there are 5753 acceptances out of the 17676. This equals 32.5%. So this chart actually shows that with an MCAT score of 30, you still have only ~35% chance of getting accepted regardless of GPA.

I think that this is the most telling part of the chart, along with the excel graph. 20% of people is a lot, except when it is out of 515, and that 515 is out of 17676 total acceptances in the range. When you think about, 20% of 3.29% is not very significant in any way.

If I made a miscalculation, please correct me.

Click to expand...

Your analysis makes more sense. The acceptance rate is only for those with similar stats and not the entire applicant pool.

I agree with batch, there is just something not quite right about what we have found here. I think it was done on purpose.