Are Med Admissions Random or Inexplicable?

[jcaptian]

::Checks inbox::
::Sees 18 interview invites, including 6 of the top 10::

Yeah, I feel pretty good with it.

And no, I didn't interpret applying broadly as applying to every school.

Ohhhhh...how humble of you

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[theherowedeserv]

A more common 3.6/30 has a slightly better chance of admission, I'd estimate it at about 54% out of >7,000 applicants

On this chart https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf, it says that 71.7 of people with stats like that are accepted. Does the chart really refer to people at the upper end?

 

[skiing]

You can try to fake it but gotta say that there are many layers on which your scheme may be caught and even if you are accepted, you are judged for your dishonesty by those aware. Nobody is going to go on a vendetta against you but I think it ends up playing against you in the long run anyway because nobody expects better of you, nobody pushes you to be better than that.

Great post! However, I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering the above. What is Tatastrophy implyig is being faked? What is the 'scheme?' Judged, by whom? Vendetta, why?

 

[PartyAnimal]

I'm at a 3.4cGPA, 3.56 sGPA and 33 MCAT and spoke to an adcom member at a school I got rejected at this cycle and she clearly mentioned that the 3.4cGPA was the single thing holding me back.

Agree w/ LizzyM

 

[Nuel]

Sad to say, the average MCAT over all attempts is the best predictor of performance in medical school.

I have yet to see a study that compares the GRE, GMAT or other standardized tests to medical school performance before claiming the MCAT (or whatever variant measure thereof) is the best predictor of medical school performance. Obviously most medical students only take the MCAT so we may never have these data. However if this study were carried, more than likely, we'll also find these tests "predict" some medical school performance.

I sit in a class of medical students with a range of scores. There are some students in my class with MCAT scores of 23-25, and they are doing just fine. This makes a lot of sense when you consider the nature of medical school. Medical school doesn't require too much thinking. You just have to sit down for long hours almost daily and memorize a lot of information, and this is accessible by most of us if we put in the time.

Studies show the MCAT is a weakly predictive test. Yet, the significance of the MCAT and even the preclinical years to medical practice are usually overestimated and over-stretched. On the other hand, I consider it a very good weed-out test, and that's about how much use there is to it in medical training. I scored in >90th percentile and I don't think it means much. I don't buy the claim that the MCAT predicts much other than being good at taking the MCAT, some baseline level of "intelligence", and possibly proficiency at standardized tests.

 

[LizzyM]

On this chart https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf, it says that 71.7 of people with stats like that are accepted. Does the chart really refer to people at the upper end?

It does mix in people at the upper end, so as a better predictor for someone with exactly 3.6/30, I took the weighted average of all four cells around that particular combination. (3.4 to 3.79 and 28 to 31).

I have yet to see a study that compares the GRE, GMAT or other standardized tests to medical school performance before claiming the MCAT (or whatever variant measure thereof) is the best predictor of medical school performance. Obviously most medical students only take the MCAT so we may never have these data. However if this study were carried, more than likely, we'll also find these tests "predict" some medical school performance.

I sit in a class of medical students with a range of scores. There are some students in my class with MCAT scores of 23-25, and they are doing just fine. This makes a lot of sense when you consider the nature of medical school. Medical school doesn't require too much thinking. You just have to sit down for long hours almost daily and memorize a lot of information, and this is accessible by most of us if we put in the time.

Studies show the MCAT is a weakly predictive test. Yet, the significance of the MCAT and even the preclinical years to medical practice are usually overestimated and over-stretched. On the other hand, I consider it a very good weed-out test, and that's about how much use there is to it in medical training. I scored in >90th percentile and I don't think it means much. I don't buy the claim that the MCAT predicts much other than being good at taking the MCAT, some baseline level of "intelligence", and possibly proficiency at standardized tests.

Yes, performance on various tests tend to track with one another but the only thing we have for the vast majority of med school applicants and students is the MCAT.

AMCAS has these data (on med school success by MCAT score) and they share them in materials distributed to admissions officers and Deans. While attrition from medical school is low and not always associated with poor academic performance, the proportion of students who graduate in 4 years and the proportion who ever graduate is correlated with MCAT score with average over all scores providing a better correlation that any single score (most recent, best, etc) or any single subscore or combination of subscores. There is a steep climb to 25/26 where there is an inflection point and a flattening out. On the other hand, the correlation between MCAT and Step 1 does not have an inflection point so a school that is looking to maximize its students performance on that score (not just passing but exceptionally high scores) a school is going to aim to admit students with very high MCATs and not just "good enough" MCATs.

 

[Geebeejay]

Great post! However, I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering the above. What is Tatastrophy implyig is being faked? What is the 'scheme?' Judged, by whom? Vendetta, why?

At The Interview
Interviewer: So why do you want to go to Skiing University Medical School?
You: Well, I love the city of Skiing....also my goals sync with the mission of skiing medical school, because I LOVE geriatric care, which is a focus of the school and hospital. I've volunteered at nursing homes, and LOVED it. I will certainly pursue geriatric care passionately for the rest of my long, fruitful life....especially minority, underserved geriatric patients.
Interviewer: Wow, you really seem into geriatrics (hmm, I wonder if this kid is FOS)

Real Life

@#$% geriatrics - Ortho, here I come biatch! Dammit, I gotta go to the nursing home again today...@#$%!

 

[Nuel]

AMCAS has these data (on med school success by MCAT score) and they share them in materials distributed to admissions officers and Deans. While attrition from medical school is low and not always associated with poor academic performance, the proportion of students who graduate in 4 years and the proportion who ever graduate is correlated with MCAT score with average over all scores providing a better correlation that any single score (most recent, best, etc) or any single subscore or combination of subscores. There is a steep climb to 25/26 where there is an inflection point and a flattening out. On the other hand, the correlation between MCAT and Step 1 does not have an inflection point so a school that is looking to maximize its students performance on that score (not just passing but exceptionally high scores) a school is going to aim to admit students with very high MCATs and not just "good enough" MCATs.

I have seen some of these charts and Step I performance is maximized around 27/28. We are looking at different charts, it seems. I also recall the best graduation rates hovered around 3.8/32-35, but this is splitting hairs.

Also shouldn't schools be aiming to produce individuals who will be good clinicians? We all know the MCAT/preclinical years don't say too much of clinical practice, although I understand high MCATs are good for USNews rankings.

I am not at odds with how schools use the MCAT, but what I am always quick to emphasize is that far too much projective and prospective stock is placed on these scores. It becomes extremely stupid when students make subtle career assessments over a largely meaningless test that is just a hoop to climb. Except for the verbal, the test as a whole isn't all that difficult and can favor smart but lazy students. Medical school and medicine, on the other hand, is just brute force hard work, and that is a far more useful "skill" to have.

The MCAT is just a very very good weed-out test.

 

[45408]

I hate to be negative the process is not standardized, and if any thing is not standard then chances are it becomes random. Sometimes the process is very inefficient(multiple statements, essays etc and rerecording your grades) and time consuming. Anything that is outside free market is not good.

Just because there is a component of seeming randomness (and anything with human judgment in it will seem random to some outside observers) doesn't mean "this whole process is a crapshoot," which is often alleged here in pre-allo.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them?

Schools accept more students than they can matriculate. My alma mater would accept something like twice as many applicants as they knew would matriculate and then waitlist even more.

Yeah, but look at other kids in college. How many people can say they have a 3.5+ GPA? I'm not saying let people with 2.0's into med school, but judging by some of the incompetent physicians in the workforce, clearly a 3.7+ GPA isn't the only factor in making you a good physician.

You can't get 'em all...

Also shouldn't schools be aiming to produce individuals who will be good clinicians?

Not if their goal is also to produce good physician-scientists.

 

[Nuel]

Not if their goal is also to produce good physician-scientists.

Good one, except most of them will end up in straight clinical practice. I'm seeing it everyday and it's very understandable. As a physician-scientist hopeful, I'm worried as the funding and research climate is very rough now and there are no signs it will get better. But one just has to try hard. There is a discussion on this issue in the MD/PhD forums.

 

[Geebeejay]

I am not at odds with how schools use the MCAT, but what I am always quick to emphasize is that far too much projective and prospective stock is placed on these scores. It becomes extremely stupid when students make subtle career assessments over a largely meaningless test that is just a hoop to climb. Except for the verbal, the test as a whole isn't all that difficult and can favor smart but lazy students. Medical school and medicine, on the other hand, is just brute force hard work, and that is a far more useful "skill" to have.

The MCAT is just a very very good weed-out test.

I agree with you that the MCAT isn't the ideal way to judge whether or not someone will be a good doctor....but if you can't study for the MCAT and get a good enough score, how can a medical school be confident you will study for STEP exams and get good scores on those?

 

[notbobtrustme]

The process is random but probabilistic. Meaning you don't know where you are going to get in, but you can skew your odds with better stats.

It's also why there is so much gaming and bull**** involved in the process because those in the know know how to skew their application. That is the basis of most advice given on these boards. GPA > school, major doesn't matter, kill the MCAT, volunteer for 100 hours. You do this garbage and then you can be in a good position for interview invites. That's the probabilistic aspect of admissions. The random factor is that no one knows why they got in. There are tons of examples of people on these boards getting into top 20 schools but being rejected from mid-tier schools. That's the randomness of the process.

 

[Geebeejay]

The process is random but probabilistic. Meaning you don't know where you are going to get in, but you can skew your odds with better stats.

It's also why there is so much gaming and bull**** involved in the process because those in the know know how to skew their application. That is the basis of most advice given on these boards. GPA > school, major doesn't matter, kill the MCAT, volunteer for 100 hours. You do this garbage and then you can be in a good position for interview invites. That's the probabilistic aspect of admissions. The random factor is that no one knows why they got in. There are tons of examples of people on these boards getting into top 20 schools but being rejected from mid-tier schools. That's the randomness of the process.

I dunno man, I don't think that's random at all. People with an application fit for a "top 20" school may not be fit for a "mid tier" school. One of my interviewers at a good, but not "top 20" school I interviewed at told me something very frank, along the lines of: "If you want to spend a lot of your time doing research, don't go to this school...we probably wouldn't accept you anyway. If you want to be an excellent clinician and master clinical procedures, then this is the perfect school for you." Do you think this school would admit you even with a 40, 4.0, ten publications, but only a few hours in the ED as a volunteer for clinical experience? I honestly don't think so. Would a research heavy school in the top20 admit you? Sure! On the flip side, someone with high stats, thousands of hours of clinical experience, and never touched a lab probably won't get into a top20 no matter how high the MCAT.

 

[vayntraubinator]

LizzyM has kindly presented a formula for a successful candidate.

If you fulfill all those check boxes, then you are certainly conveying your commitment to excellence as well as your promise to medicine.

The parts that are random, are really the parts that are random. Let em give you an example. When I look at a decaying pile of atoms, they decay with a specific half-life. However, when I look at only the decay of one atom, the decay is completely random--it could occur at any point in time.

Sometimes we shoot for schools and our story HAPPENS to click with someone. You get an interview invite, and you may blow them away. Yet your scores impede you and so you're placed on the wait-list because you're in the bottom 10% of one particular section. You might send some LOIs. You may not get off. Or you may get off.

I think the randomness is who sees your application, that minuscule difference between a couple MCAT points, how persuasive your interviewer was, or how you clicked with your interviewer. Because med school is supposed to select students who all compete at the same level, and yet are very diverse.

These small shades of grey are really what separate applicants whom are all "equally good".

 

[HughMyron]

MCAT measures just one day in the life (or in some cases, 3 days ). The gpa is considered a better measure of one's work ethic over the long haul setting aside the fact that prepping for the MCAT requires considerable work.

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

 

[Fivo]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

brb asking my doctors for their mcat scores
brb better mcat score = better clinical skills
brb brb brah

 

[LizzyM]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

Being a good test taker does NOT make someone a good doctor. In some instances, I might prefer someone who had an MCAT of 28 but who has an excellent bedside manner or "good hands" in the procedure suite.

 

[GrinchMD]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

lol...are your stats 3.4/34 by any chance?

 

[HughMyron]

lol...are your stats 3.4/34 by any chance?

No...why would my GPA be that low?

 

[virtuoso735]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

Since when was a 30 a bad score?

 

[jcaptian]

No...why would my GPA be that low?

lol

 

[Contemplating]

No...why would my GPA be that low?

lol

+1. lol.

 

[1289]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

 

[Midifelder10]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

I agree.

I don't have a 34 neither I am that good but once again this is the only common denominator so it should have the maximum weight. Once again GPA means nothing, nada, zich between different schools and departments.

 

[Midifelder10]

Being a good test taker does NOT make someone a good doctor. In some instances, I might prefer someone who had an MCAT of 28 but who has an excellent bedside manner or "good hands" in the procedure suite.

With due respect I disagree. We are talking about selecting MD students so I rather select a 34 over 28. Now the outcome maybe different but at the time of decision making that is the only info I have.

 

[Midifelder10]

Since when was a 30 a bad score?

Since you joined SDN.

 

[Geebeejay]

With due respect I disagree. We are talking about selecting MD students so I rather select a 34 over 28. Now the outcome maybe different but at the time of decision making that is the only info I have.

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

I'm not a doctor yet, but I can't think of any situation where a practicing physician, in order to treat a patient, will be required to take a timed, closed-book, aptitude test that requires months of studying arbitrary, and otherwise irrelevant information, as well as developing very specific, otherwise useless, test-taking skills designed for this specific test alone.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

Being a good test taker does NOT make someone a good doctor. In some instances, I might prefer someone who had an MCAT of 28 but who has an excellent bedside manner or "good hands" in the procedure suite.

I agree with LizzyM on this one. Plus AAMC statistics show that the ones who had a high GPA 3.6-4.0 and with a lower end MCAT 27-33 graduate in 4 years slightly more often than a person with lower GPA and higher mcat.

The people who have a high MCAT do have a higher median USLME score. However, if one were look at the ranges (I have no idea where to find these) of the scores they would probably be all over the place. So the MCAT is just a gauge of a students test taking abilities and should be treated as anything more.

 

[Anathema]

Personally I think this is very unjust. All other things equal, I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

But I'm not an adcom, so I don't get to decide things.

So much funny it's funny.

I struggled with the MCAT and I still think it's a joke. Do I think I deserve the score I got? Hell no, but I got it and that's all the admissions committee is seeing. When you have 3 midterms determining your GPA, that's a better indicator of who you are rather than a one shot test.

Personally I'd take the doctor who wouldn't judge others to arbitrarily.

Also, like everyone else said a 30 is not bad.

 

[LizzyM]

With due respect I disagree. We are talking about selecting MD students so I rather select a 34 over 28. Now the outcome maybe different but at the time of decision making that is the only info I have.

No, we are speaking about choosing a physician after all that is said and done. I would rather receive care from a physician with good people skills and technical ability (if I'm having a procedure performed) than one with poor people skills and poor technical ability but a better MCAT score and undergrad gpa back in the day before they were admitted to med school.

Some schools put a priority on those skills and others are grinding out physician-scientists. I'm not going out of my way to be treated by a physician-scientist (and thank God I've never been sick enough to need that sort of medical attention).

 

[bigbird23]

This argument keeps circling around my original point, that adcoms should give feedback as to what they are looking for. If the adcoms said why an applicant was rejected, the premise of things being random and people being frustrated would come to an end and this would not even be a discussion. I simply do not believe that "not having the resources" is enough of an excuse, (some schools gets 10k+ applicants= 100k+ in app. revenue per year, half of them are computer screened-out, others have massive endowments). All it takes is to have 4 defaults (1) low mcat (2) low gpa (3) low EC's (4) not a good fit based on school mission, which are probably entered into a computer program anyways. If an applicant is about to get rejected, at some point in the admissions cycle, someone or something has to decide WHY they will not get invited for an interview. I'm not asking for the full transcript, just give me a ballpark of what the adcoms thought based on the above 4 categories. I highly doubt some of my applications were even looked at by a human, in fact, I would not be surprised at all if they were not.

The real reason why schools "cant" give feedback is because they DONT want students to know their criteria. If students knew exactly what another school wants, students with those below-avg stats would NOT apply, this means lost revenue. So please, there are costs for everything, I for instance, have bills to pay and a giant student-loan, this doenst mean I wont give every school I apply to a convincing reason why I like that school. Or as someone posted earlier, give up on looking for a job and depend on parents just to make my application better if I dont get in the first time.

I do not see anything wrong with computers screening applicants, in fact I think its an efficient way for schools to narrow their applicant pool. However, its unfair that the applicants are left in the dark, without a clue as to why their app was rejected/ put on hold. I respect the job adcoms have, I would never want to do that for a living, but its disingenuous for them to not give any indication why an applicant was put on hold/ rejected. If a computer filtered an applicant out, please say so (I'm not talking about the pre-secondary screens).

For instance, in my case LizzyM, you say that my mcat scores will be averaged and this is why i dont have a decent shot even though my last attempt is close the avg at a few schools. However, when I call my target schools and ask them "should i retake" they say taking it a 4th time looks really bad even if I improve my score. What am I supposed to believe? My guts say, retake the mcat because I've figured out what works for me to do well (4 pt jump over my last 2 attempts) yet I'm worried about how schools will view a 4th try. I'm in a difficult spot because I have a good full-time med assistant job waiting for me that I really want to do, but I cant commit to it because I have no idea if my mcat is the limiting factor. If so, I will need to dedicate 3 months to study and cant accept the med assistant job. This is exactly the dilemma thousands of re-applicants face, life would be easier and less-stressful if schools just said, your mcat is fine/ not fine so focus on other things.

 

[Geebeejay]

This argument keeps circling around my original point, that adcoms should give feedback as to what they are looking for. If the adcoms said why an applicant was rejected, the premise of things being random and people being frustrated would come to an end and this would not even be a discussion. I simply do not believe that "not having the resources" is enough of an excuse, (some schools gets 10k+ applicants= 100k+ in app. revenue per year, half of them are computer screened-out, others have massive endowments). All it takes is to have 4 defaults (1) low mcat (2) low gpa (3) low EC's (4) not a good fit based on school mission, which are probably entered into a computer program anyways. If an applicant is about to get rejected, at some point in the admissions cycle, someone or something has to decide WHY they will not get invited for an interview. I'm not asking for the full transcript, just give me a ballpark of what the adcoms thought based on the above 4 categories. I highly doubt some of my applications were even looked at by a human, in fact, I would not be surprised at all if they were not.

The real reason why schools "cant" give feedback is because they DONT want students to know their criteria. If students knew exactly what another school wants, students with those below-avg stats would NOT apply, this means lost revenue. So please, there are costs for everything, I for instance, have bills to pay and a giant student-loan, this doenst mean I wont give every school I apply to a convincing reason why I like that school. Or as someone posted earlier, give up on looking for a job and depend on parents just to make my application better if I dont get in the first time.

I do not see anything wrong with computers screening applicants, in fact I think its an efficient way for schools to narrow their applicant pool. However, its unfair that the applicants are left in the dark, without a clue as to why their app was rejected/ put on hold. I respect the job adcoms have, I would never want to do that for a living, but its disingenuous for them to not give any indication why an applicant was put on hold/ rejected. If a computer filtered an applicant out, please say so (I'm not talking about the pre-secondary screens).

For instance, in my case LizzyM, you say that my mcat scores will be averaged and this is why i dont have a decent shot even though my last attempt is close the avg at a few schools. However, when I call my target schools and ask them "should i retake" they say taking it a 4th time looks really bad even if I improve my score. What am I supposed to believe? My guts say, retake the mcat because I've figured out what works for me to do well (4 pt jump over my last 2 attempts) yet I'm worried about how schools will view a 4th try. I'm in a difficult spot because I have a good full-time med assistant job waiting for me that I really want to do, but I cant commit to it because I have no idea if my mcat is the limiting factor. If so, I will need to dedicate 3 months to study and cant accept the med assistant job. This is exactly the dilemma thousands of re-applicants face, life would be easier and less-stressful if schools just said, your mcat is fine/ not fine so focus on other things.

I understand and think this is acceptable, but its not practical. Med School admissions are already busy enough (8-10 weeks post interview decision?). Do we really want to expect them to do even more? Giving 10000 applicants a personalized reason is not going to happen, and even giving them 1 of 4 possible reasons is still a lot of extra work. To implement such a practice, ADCOMs would certainly have to hire more worker-bees, and in this sort of economy, I don't see that happening.

It's a bummer being in the dark, but look at your application....hell, have your advisor look at it and ask for his/her two-cents. If your MCAT was <30 or unbalanced, there's your reason. If you're GPA is low or inconsistent, there's your reason. If the school's mission is to train physicians to contribute to medical care in the state of Alaska, and you show zero interest in Alaska, and zero interest in environmental medicine...there's your reason. If you have a 40 MCAT, 4.0 and 10 publications and a school with an avg MCAT of 31 and with comparatively low research opportunities rejects you, the reason should be obvious. If you're personal statement is entirely of a clinical experience, and a research heavy "physician-scientist" school rejects you....there's your reason. If the school notoriously only interviews like 200 out of 5000 applicants, then there might not be a good reason, except you didn't fit the bill AS WELL AS SOMEONE ELSE DID. Being arbitrarily "Qualified" isn't everything. There are hundreds of "qualified" applicants for every spot.

Of all of the schools I've been rejected from so far, I can certainly think of at least 1 valid reason why I was rejected.

 

[yellowfish]

The real reason why schools "cant" give feedback is because they DONT want students to know their criteria.

No. The real reason is because you pay medical schools to review your application, not to help you improve it.

Medical school admissions criteria isn't a secret.

 

[LizzyM]

One issue with giving feedback is that there would be problems to say "MCAT too low" if any other applicant with that MCAT or a lower one was admitted. In many cases it is not one thing but a combination of three or four and all of them would need to be mentioned to avoid a situation where someone is lead to believe that if they raise their MCAT by 2 points they are homefree only to discover that their ECs were substandard as well. Furthermore, many of these characteristics are moving targets where a good score one year is below average the next.

Seriously, if you can't figure it out yourself based on the information in the MSAR, you might lack critical thinking skills.

 

[1289]

One issue with giving feedback is that there would be problems to say "MCAT too low" if any other applicant with that MCAT or a lower one was admitted. In many cases it is not one thing but a combination of three or four and all of them would need to be mentioned to avoid a situation where someone is lead to believe that if they raise their MCAT by 2 points they are homefree only to discover that their ECs were substandard as well. Furthermore, many of these characteristics are moving targets where a good score one year is below average the next.

Seriously, if you can't figure it out yourself based on the information in the MSAR, you might lack critical thinking skills.

ive been thinking this while reading a lot of the posts in here. isnt this what sources such as msar/us news/etc are for?

 

[notbobtrustme]

So much funny it's funny.

I struggled with the MCAT and I still think it's a joke. Do I think I deserve the score I got? Hell no, but I got it and that's all the admissions committee is seeing. When you have 3 midterms determining your GPA, that's a better indicator of who you are rather than a one shot test.

Personally I'd take the doctor who wouldn't judge others to arbitrarily.

Also, like everyone else said a 30 is not bad.

The problem with GPAs is that they aren't standard across schools. There are thousands of universities across America and some with much less rigor than others. Even within a university, there are cupcake teachers and majors. There needs to be something else that can standardize students quickly and reliably.

The MCAT is a test of critical thinking and knowledge application, not straight regurgitation. That's what makes it so difficult because, for the most part, high school/college is about spitting back the information you were taught, not applying it in new/novel circumstances.

 

[Geebeejay]

The problem with GPAs is that they aren't standard across schools. There are thousands of universities across America and some with much less rigor than others. Even within a university, there are cupcake teachers and majors. There needs to be something else that can standardize students quickly and reliably.

The MCAT is a test of critical thinking and knowledge application, not straight regurgitation. That's what makes it so difficult because, for the most part, high school/college is about spitting back the information you were taught, not applying it in new/novel circumstances.

Well, this is why there is an MCAT. It's standardized. A person with a 4.0/28 might come as a red flag - maybe he didn't deserve that 4.0 (easy classes, cheating, bad test taker, bad stress-management). But a person with a 3.4/40 will also come across as a red flag. I think it goes both ways, but I think GPA is more important because it is cumulative over the course of 4 years. MCAT culminates in only one (or three) days.

Hell, the fact that the MCAT is being drastically changed in the next few years PROVES that it is currently judged as an imperfect scale to judge people on. It means you are good at taking one specific test, not necessarily that you will be a good doctor/excel in medical school. And quite frankly, you will never use any of the information or skills you learned studying for the MCAT ever again. (well, you might use some of the same study skills for your boards). However, if your GPA shows that you are either not studious, slack off, or don't function well in an academic, lecture setting....I think this is a lot more of a red flag than having a "meh" MCAT score.

 

[GrinchMD]

I think the MCAT/GPA debate is a rather silly one, but I'm bored this morning so I'll add more fuel to the fire.

This is worth a read for you neurotic pre-meds...
https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

"Like other standardized tests, the MCAT exam is an imperfect measure of test takers' achievement."

"An examinee's MCAT total score plus or minus two points defines the 68% confidence interval."

The general consensus from the Adcom survey shows that sGPA > GPA > MCAT, although the interview and LORs play a larger role in the offer decision.

 

[Geebeejay]

"An examinee’s MCAT total score plus or minus two points defines the 68% confidence interval."

Nice post! I said something like this a few months ago and got a ton of angry cries of "blasphemy" in return

 

[occams_razor]

I think the MCAT/GPA debate is a rather silly one, but I'm bored this morning so I'll add more fuel to the fire.

This is worth a read for you neurotic pre-meds...
https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

"Like other standardized tests, the MCAT exam is an imperfect measure of test takers' achievement."

"An examinee's MCAT total score plus or minus two points defines the 68% confidence interval."

The general consensus from the Adcom survey shows that sGPA > GPA > MCAT, although the interview and LORs play a larger role in the offer decision.

"The general consensus from the Adcom survey shows that sGPA > GPA > MCAT, although the interview and LORs play a larger role in the offer decision."

-this is what I've heard many times as well

 

[Gauss44]

One issue with giving feedback is that there would be problems to say "MCAT too low" if any other applicant with that MCAT or a lower one was admitted. In many cases it is not one thing but a combination of three or four and all of them would need to be mentioned to avoid a situation where someone is lead to believe that if they raise their MCAT by 2 points they are homefree only to discover that their ECs were substandard as well. Furthermore, many of these characteristics are moving targets where a good score one year is below average the next.

Seriously, if you can't figure it out yourself based on the information in the MSAR, you might lack critical thinking skills.

While I agree with your first paragraph, I would like to make a point about the MSAR.

The MSAR has it's inadequacies. 4 Examples:

1. MSAR doesn't specifically address common situations where a student has a large difference between his/her science and cumulative gpas,

2. or situations where a non-urm student has a lower, say 3.2 gpa.

The former is confusing because there are several logical mutually exclusive ways to resolve that situation. For instance, you might wonder if most adcoms average the science and cumulative gpas, or use cumulative to screen applications and then only consider science gpa if the applicantion passes initial screening (vice versa), or something else....

The latter is confusing because, according to MSAR, most schools that accept students with lower gpas have large numbers of urms. According to SDN charts URMs have a 50% greater chance than non-urms at getting accepted (with a 3.2 gpa). Lumping groups together renders overall medians somewhat meaningless to the individual.

3. MSAR doesn't keep track of how many students have double majors which is relatively common and doesn't provide relevant info. for double majors/double degrees. (Ex. A gpa differential between majors like a 3.2 in English and 3.8 in Physics.)

4. MSAR also lacks a chart so you have to look at schools page by page, a slower than necessary process. (Esp. if you are initially amenable to going anywhere in the nation.)

Personally, I've found your explanations, charts, equations, and numbers to be much more helpful than MSAR. I would love it if you published your own book. The main thing that I appreciate about your clarifications is that you are able to summarize without oversimplifying too much. This response acknowledges that I'm not exactly sure who you are replying to, your use of the word "might in the last sentence, and that I didn't read this entire 4-page discussion so this might be slightly out of context.

 

[Jas1360]

I was wondering from an admissions perspective, is there a certain MCAT score threshold where all the numbers are considered equal?

I know that people say there is not much difference between a 37 and a 39, etc. but is that true in the eyes of admissions committees?

 

[notbobtrustme]

I was wondering from an admissions perspective, is there a certain MCAT score threshold where all the numbers are considered equal?

I know that people say there is not much difference between a 37 and a 39, etc. but is that true in the eyes of admissions committees?

I'd imagine so. The differences between the top scores can be as little as one question on the entire test. The MCAT isn't that great at differentiating top scorers (eg anyone who gets a 35 is capable of getting a 40).

 

[yellowfish]

I'd imagine so. The differences between the top scores can be as little as one question on the entire test. The MCAT isn't that great at differentiating top scorers (eg anyone who gets a 35 is capable of getting a 40).

This question comes up a lot, and I have to say I don't believe there isn't a "threshold" at which admissions committees are blind to differences in scores. Higher is better. Higher is better.

Also I disagree with "anyone who gets a 35 can get a 40" .. Anyone who gets a 33 can also get a 35, right? And anyone who gets a 31, can also get a 33, correct? It's not about "capability" it's about probability and variation. Committees don't look at a 35, and say, well, this guy could've gotten a 40. It's a 35. And a 40 is a 40. Just score as high as you possibly can, know that higher is always better, and then don't think about it anymore.

 

[LizzyM]

This question comes up a lot, and I have to say I don't believe there isn't a "threshold" at which admissions committees are blind to differences in scores. Higher is better. Higher is better.

Also I disagree with "anyone who gets a 35 can get a 40" .. Anyone who gets a 33 can also get a 35, right? And anyone who gets a 31, can also get a 33, correct? It's not about "capability" it's about probability and variation. Committees don't look at a 35, and say, well, this guy could've gotten a 40. It's a 35. And a 40 is a 40. Just score as high as you possibly can, know that higher is always better, and then don't think about it anymore.

The percentiles of the scores are wide in the middle and narrow at the ends. Anything at or above the 95th percentile is pretty much equivalent but human nature being what it is I generally think of 40 as the threshold where I am blind to differences in scores. YMMV

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Dr M is a cool customer.

 

[squat]

I would much rather have the doctor with a 3.4/34 than a 3.8/30. The 34 proved that he can succeed on one of the most difficult graduate school examinations, the 30 just proved that he went to an easy school and is a bad test taker.

I'm late to the party, but this is just too funny. I've NEVER asked my doctor what his MCAT score was. And, I have never once thought, "I wonder if this guy is legit...what exactly was his PS score?"' I'd rather have a doctor who listens to me and treats me with respect.

 

[Midifelder10]

I'm late to the party, but this is just too funny. I've NEVER asked my doctor what his MCAT score was. And, I have never once thought, "I wonder if this guy is legit...what exactly was his PS score?"' I'd rather have a doctor who listens to me and treats me with respect.

Good point.

 

[IlDestriero]

I'm late to the party, but this is just too funny. I've NEVER asked my doctor what his MCAT score was. And, I have never once thought, "I wonder if this guy is legit...what exactly was his PS score?"' I'd rather have a doctor who listens to me and treats me with respect.

Nah, I want the superstar that's the best in town, and for a specialist I want the best in the region.
Just wait until you get sick. Some people just want a good listener, but health care professionals who have seen the difference in the quality of care over their entire careers know better.
Of course that doesn't necessarily correlate with medical school attended, or even residency. Some people just have mad skills and have spent decades honing them vs resting on their laurels. There's a lot of that around.

 

[Anathema]

I'm late to the party, but this is just too funny. I've NEVER asked my doctor what his MCAT score was. And, I have never once thought, "I wonder if this guy is legit...what exactly was his PS score?"' I'd rather have a doctor who listens to me and treats me with respect.

Meh, if I'm dying, the last thing I'd care about is bed side manners. I just want them to fix me up and sometimes that just requires knowledge.