How do intelligence, GPA, and MCAT score correlate?

[Susanoo]

Legit question I've been wondering. The reason I ask is since I've took my MCAT (I scored average-ish), I've spoken to some of my classmates who have also taken it, sometimes numerous times. One thing that shocked me is when classmates who do SIGNIFICANTLY better than me in school scored several points below me on multiple attempts.

How is this possible? There is one girl I've had several classes with who has a 3.9+ GPA. She scored like 3-5 points lower than me, twice. This surprises me because out of all the classes we have taken together (and that's like 5 or 6), I have NEVER scored higher than her on a SINGLE exam. My GPA is WAY lower than hers. I feel like I put in more time studying too, but I could be wrong about that, it's not like I see every hour she studies.

Another friend graduated top of his class at a small university who scored lower than me. I literally ask him for study advice and school advice.

I guess it could be luck, I might have just scored higher by being an outlier statistically, having guessed well on unsure questions and having a test that encompassed more topics that I was familiar with (I scored consistently on practice exams, so not sure if it was a fluke)... I don't think it was because I worked harder or studied more, but that is a possibility. Maybe there are different types of intelligences at play here? Like rote memorization from a lecture class versus critical thinking that you can extract the answer from a passage?

How can I score higher on the MCAT, but score lower in EVERY class, than somebody? I only listed 2 examples, I know several other people who do better in our classes but worse on the MCAT...

Kind of just curious about this...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TxC]

Things like this happen all the time; nothing strange.

Maybe you're a better standardized test taker, maybe you studied harder/more for the MCAT, maybe you slept better the night before the MCAT......

 

[Saxappeal1]

OP, the MCAT doesn't measure strictly intelligence, it measures test-taking skills, performance on a certain day, etc. I mean, think about it: I'm a neuro guy, so if my BS section has a lot of neuro on it, then am I smarter than my friend who is a beast in microbio who has higher GPA than myself? No. There are too many variables to consider. I mean I scored higher on the MCAT than my friend did by 1 point after HE helped ME with MCAT studying.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm sure there's a study that has looked at this. Maybe try and find something. My guess is that if there's a correlation between those things it's somewhat weak. Intelligence matters, of course, but once you get into college, drive and work ethic become very important too. This is why people get into great schools but then drop out or are kicked out due to poor academic performance.

 

[tea guzzling traveler]

I feel like this thread has been done before, but there is a weak correlation.

I would say both correlate more with hard work. Also as others mention the Mcat can be highly variable.

Edit: posted as @NickNaylor posted his, but same idea

 

[jb94mg]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/intelligence-and-the-mcat.1079953/ An interesting thread made by @gettheleadout about this.

 

[intangible]

The MCAT, like any other standardized test, is a test to beat. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't necessarily have to make sense of the information, you just have to know it.

That being said, some people are better at knowing things.

 

[IncognitoGuy]

Each administration of the MCAT is also like a grab-bag of subjects. Some show up, some do not and some might be more emphasized than others. If it plays to your strengths, of course you'll do better, and if not then the score might not be representative of what you're capable of.

 

[Womb Raider]

I'd take more pride in having a high MCAT than having a high GPA.

 

[ZymurgySurfer]

Without having seen any research on the subject, I'd say a high MCAT correlates more strongly with a higher intelligence than GPA. That's not to say that a high GPA doesn't also correlate with higher intelligence. Things like deductive reasoning (to me) are largely unteachable and will be more rewarded on a standardized test than your biology test. However, as the saying goes "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard," and I think that the MCAT is as good of an indication of that as anything.

 

[intangible]

Medical student, high GPA and MCAT, talking to me and some PhDc's: "Wait, but aren't like antibiotics and antibodies, like, essentially the same thing?"

That being said, while we all play the numbers game, the numbers aren't indicative of anything in particular.

 

[mimelim]

The MCAT, like any other standardized test, is a test to beat. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't necessarily have to make sense of the information, you just have to know it.

That being said, some people are better at knowing things.

I would strongly disagree with this. The reality is that the amount of information that you need to know for the MCAT is quite limited. There really isn't a ton of information to 'know'. It is more of a test of application and problem solving than say Step 1 is. In general, the people that I know who have asymmetric scores (like I did at 3.4/40+) would all say that they are good problem solvers and poor memorizes, maybe n=10 that I know in the past decade.

Each administration of the MCAT is also like a grab-bag of subjects. Some show up, some do not and some might be more emphasized than others. If it plays to your strengths, of course you'll do better, and if not then the score might not be representative of what you're capable of.

The problem with this assertion is that people tend to get the same scores over and over. People don't get 'lucky' on the MCAT or Step 1 or any of these tests. That is why they are as long as they are. Is there variability, absolutely. But, the concept that the test screwed you over because it didn't ask you the right questions is suspect. By your reasoning, if the test happened to play to your strengths, it would falsely indicate what you are capable of, which no pre-med would admit to.

Medical student, high GPA and MCAT, talking to me and some PhDc's: "Wait, but aren't like antibiotics and antibodies, like, essentially the same thing?"

That being said, while we all play the numbers game, the numbers aren't indicative of anything in particular.

Someone with a high GPA/MCAT didn't know a content based question? Not sure what you are trying to say here. Should they know more about antibiotics and antibodies? I would hope so. But, that is a content gap, not an intellectual one. And while your opinion is that numbers don't indicate anything, I would say that the vast majority of us sitting on adcoms would disagree. I think that people read too much into scores at the exclusion of other factors to their and their school's detriment, but to say they, "aren't indicative of anything in particular." is a bit silly. If you are looking to answer the question, "Who is going to struggle with the academics of medical school?" The combination of GPA and MCAT will go a long way. Will it predict who will be a good physician or even do well in medical school? I don't think so, but many would disagree.

Personally, I think that the LSAT is a better test than the MCAT mainly because it gets rid of content entirely and is almost exclusively a problem solving/reading test. I would actually advocate replacing the MCAT with it, but that is for another thread entirely.

 

[intangible]

I would strongly disagree with this. The reality is that the amount of information that you need to know for the MCAT is quite limited. There really isn't a ton of information to 'know'. It is more of a test of application and problem solving than say Step 1 is. In general, the people that I know who have asymmetric scores (like I did at 3.4/40+) would all say that they are good problem solvers and poor memorizes, maybe n=10 that I know in the past decade.

What you need to know for the MCAT relative to what you need to know as you advance through medical school is limited, yes. However, for a student seeing biology, chemistry or physics for the first time, the information needed to do well on the MCAT is extensive and, perhaps, even overwhelming.

I would agree that having a strong reasoning ability will save you from basically "brute forcing" the exam, but that doesn't mean that brute force isn't possible. There are only so many ways the same question can be asked without obfuscating the meaning of the question itself.

If you know it, you know it. If you don't—there's a possibility you can get it right by deriving what you already know...but more likely, if this is your primary strategy, you will fail.

...and end up being quoted on that delusional pre-med thread.

 

[tea guzzling traveler]

I think there is also the issue of defining intelligence, which is always a bit tricky as well. Are we talking about ability to take in information, ability to reason and think critically, ability to score well on an IQ test? All of these are slightly different, but I would argue, would be aspects of intelligence.

 

[ridethecliche]

You can do well in many classes by understanding the basics and memorizing relationships. The MCAT tests thinking and problem solving. It's a different skill set.

 

[Goro]

Concur. Standardized test taking is a skill, like throwing a curve ball or playing the flute.

You can do well in many classes by understanding the basics and memorizing relationships. The MCAT tests thinking and problem solving. It's a different skill set.

 

[Narmerguy]

I'm sure it varies depending on the student's area of study. Engineers may have greater or lesser proclivities for the MCAT than Biology because the MCAT more often leverages the kind of thinking that is found in engineering.

Ultimately I think focus on intelligence is overrated. It often is about quantifying someone's "potential" and realistically I care more about what they have actually done. I know many people who aren't "brilliant" but just work their buns off and achieve great things. Most of life comes down to working hard and being persistent. I don't really care if the stoner in his mom's basement has a 160 IQ.

 

[ZPakEffect]

Like others have said, college exams tend to reward memorizing information while the MCAT tends to reward critical thinking. Both skills are necessary for physicians, which is why both numbers are important to medical schools.

 

[mehc012]

I would strongly disagree with this. The reality is that the amount of information that you need to know for the MCAT is quite limited. There really isn't a ton of information to 'know'. It is more of a test of application and problem solving than say Step 1 is. In general, the people that I know who have asymmetric scores (like I did at 3.4/40+) would all say that they are good problem solvers and poor memorizes, maybe n=10 that I know in the past decade.

Hmmm...I'm similarly asymmetric (3.2/40) and I'd say that I'm actually pretty damn good at memorization, I was just a lazy bum in college! Just so you've got an n=11

 

[maccu5000]

The MCAT science sections test how functional your knowledge is (mostly). Most college science exams only test what your knowledge is.

 

[darkjedi]

In general, the people that I know who have asymmetric scores (like I did at 3.4/40+) would all say that they are good problem solvers and poor memorizes, maybe n=10 that I know in the past decade./QUOTE]

I had an asymmetric score as well and I would totally agree with you 100%.

 

[gyngyn]

Personally, I think that the LSAT is a better test than the MCAT mainly because it gets rid of content entirely and is almost exclusively a problem solving/reading test. I would actually advocate replacing the MCAT with it, but that is for another thread entirely.

I agree.

 

[NYCdude]

The LSAT is a lot more fun than the MCAT. lol

 

[NYCdude]

Also, I disagree that the MCAT isn't a knowledge-based exam. First of all, there are enough discrete questions to destroy your score if you didn't know the facts cold. Secondly, you have to have the knowledge base to understand some of the passages and cant rely on the passage giving you all the information you need to effectively answer the questions.

 

[mimelim]

Also, I disagree that the MCAT isn't a knowledge-based exam. First of all, there are enough discrete questions to destroy your score if you didn't know the facts cold. Secondly, you have to have the knowledge base to understand some of the passages and cant rely on the passage giving you all the information you need to effectively answer the questions.

I don't think anyone would argue that you need to have outside information to do well on the MCAT. My point at least was that the primary thing being tested is your ability to put that information to use, not just regurgitate it. This is in stark contrast to Step 1, which is literally a brute force exam with a volume orders of magnitude higher than the MCAT.

 

[NYCdude]

I don't think anyone would argue that you need to have outside information to do well on the MCAT. My point at least was that the primary thing being tested is your ability to put that information to use, not just regurgitate it. This is in stark contrast to Step 1, which is literally a brute force exam with a volume orders of magnitude higher than the MCAT.

What do you mean by "brute force" exam?

 

[justadream]

What do you mean by "brute force" exam?

Mainly memorization.

MCAT requires memorization but it also tests your analytical and problem-solving skills. It's rare to get questions like "How many ATP does Glycolysis make?"

 

[mimelim]

What do you mean by "brute force" exam?

The questions are all single/double step. You either know the answer or you don't. There is no figuring things out on the exam. Virtually no problem solving. Most students spend 10-12 hours a day for 5-6 weeks straight studying for it and the only reason people stop after 5-6 weeks is because they start to really burn out.

I started a lot earlier than most people knowing that I had less time that I could take off (4 weeks), but over my second MS2 semester did over 5000 questions (three different question banks) in preparation (plus 6 different review books, 1 general and 5 specific topic books). It is all about content. This is in contrast to the MCAT which all told really doesn't have a ton of content. Is it important to know all the basics? Absolutely, it is impossible without it. But, it just is a completely different test.

 

[Lil Mick]

A lot of factors can influence GPA and MCAT scores. For instance, the strength of the university may play a part--someone at an academically challenging school may have a lower GPA but have much harder science exams that help prepare that person better for the MCAT than if he/she went to a less challenging school. For students at the same school, perhaps one studies much more than the other, getting higher grades, but that person working hard is weaker at reasoning, thus less likely to score well on an exam like the MCAT. This may be what you've witnessed with the MCAT scores of you and your acquaintances.

The MCAT is not an intelligence test; it tests both content and reasoning. Being weaker at either will put you at a disadvantage relative to someone strong in both. Smart + learning lots of science content > smart without much science knowledge ~ lots of science knowledge but less intelligent > less intelligent and less science knowledge.

I am sure that the folks in my graduate program in mathematics would struggle with the MCAT, having not taken science classes or taken the minimum required of science in undergraduate. It's probably necessary to be somewhat intelligent to do well on the MCAT, but it isn't sufficient. Similarly, it's probably necessary to have taken some coursework covered on the MCAT to do well, but it isn't sufficient for doing well.

 

[NYCdude]

The questions are all single/double step. You either know the answer or you don't. There is no figuring things out on the exam. Virtually no problem solving. Most students spend 10-12 hours a day for 5-6 weeks straight studying for it and the only reason people stop after 5-6 weeks is because they start to really burn out.

I started a lot earlier than most people knowing that I had less time that I could take off (4 weeks), but over my second MS2 semester did over 5000 questions (three different question banks) in preparation (plus 6 different review books, 1 general and 5 specific topic books). It is all about content. This is in contrast to the MCAT which all told really doesn't have a ton of content. Is it important to know all the basics? Absolutely, it is impossible without it. But, it just is a completely different test.

That's crazy. Would you say you prepared more than your classmates?

 

[GomersGoToGround]

I had an asymmetric score as well and I would totally agree with you 100%.

You're calling your 3.6 cGPA/3.9 sGPA and 36+ MCAT asymmetrical?

 

[mimelim]

That's crazy. Would you say you prepared more than your classmates?

I did quite well on Step 1 and in my opinion, exclusively because of my preparation. I am a notoriously poor memorizer and bad procrastinator. I credit SDN for helping me organize my studying entirely. I used the "Tao" method that I found on here and then modified it to fit my own schedule. Almost all my book recommendations came from SDN. I also did as many practice questions as I could get my hands on. My wife (then my girlfriend) and my brother (who was living with us at the time) both had copies of my study schedule and watched me like a hawk to make sure I kept on track. Worked out well, but it sucked. The questions aren't hard, they are actually pretty easy. There are just a ton of them and cover a huge range of information. It is a 'stereotypical' pre-med's favorite type of test. If you have good study habits and are willing to sit still and study, you will do fine on it.

 

[litotes]

I think GPA is a little bit more of a function of how hard you work whereas MCAT is a little more dependent on innate ability, don't read too much into it tho

 

[Berkboy]

So, what do you say about people that have significant variations (3-5 points) in MCAT performance in very short time periods (days or weeks), either during practice exams, or during retakes? And above what score could you say that you demonstrate a high (relatively) intelligence, if you believe that there is a correlation? Do certain scores really indicate that you shouldn't go into certain specialties, because you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to problem solve? Does your "intelligence" and/or problem solving/critical thinking improve during medical school? How much of the MCAT is due to being able to read very quickly, or having more patience, or not overlooking silly things?

Some of these questions may not make sense, and I'm simply curious to see how people interpret and respond to them.

 

[litotes]

Do certain scores really indicate that you shouldn't go into certain specialties, because you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to problem solve?

I'm no expert, but this sounds suspect as hell

 

[Berkboy]

I'm no expert, but this sounds suspect as hell

Elaborate?

 

[litotes]

Elaborate?

I don't see how certain specialties would require significantly better problem solving skills than others

 

[NYCdude]

I did quite well on Step 1 and in my opinion, exclusively because of my preparation. I am a notoriously poor memorizer and bad procrastinator. I credit SDN for helping me organize my studying entirely. I used the "Tao" method that I found on here and then modified it to fit my own schedule. Almost all my book recommendations came from SDN. I also did as many practice questions as I could get my hands on. My wife (then my girlfriend) and my brother (who was living with us at the time) both had copies of my study schedule and watched me like a hawk to make sure I kept on track. Worked out well, but it sucked. The questions aren't hard, they are actually pretty easy. There are just a ton of them and cover a huge range of information. It is a 'stereotypical' pre-med's favorite type of test. If you have good study habits and are willing to sit still and study, you will do fine on it.

That was really informative. Thanks! I'm just glad I'm good at memorizing and regurgitating things, so this makes me hopeful.

 

[Holmwood]

I am a very slow reader. What would take an average person in the same GPA bracket 30 minutes to read would take me 4 hours. Words sort of blur when it is in condensed format. Never did well in reading comprehension-type tests in the SAT/ACT. MCAT is reading comprehension heavy so it came as no surprise that my score was not impressive either.

However, I seem to excel in deductive reasoning and the long-term retention of information as I scored no.1 of all graduates in my college exit examination.
If the test was revised to have more multiple-choice/problem solving and less reading, I believe I would perform better.


From what I hear, STEP1's multiple choice sections have good correlation with GPA. . .

 

[MrChance2]

"From what I hear, STEP1's multiple choice sections have good correlation with GPA. . ." ~.4 with MCAT PS and BS, ~.6 with Medical school GPA. I think maybe .2 or .3 correlated with premed gpa.

 

[ftp902]

Going back to whether MCAT reflects intelligence well or not, I would say not everyone who's intelligent does well on MCAT. But everyone who does well on MCAT is intelligent, especially if you are scoring 13+ on each section (well, not sure about verbal).

 

[DenTony11235]

I'd take more pride in having a high MCAT than having a high GPA.

Idunno man. Are you a high GPA low MCAT candidate?

 

[cyclopes93]

A wise quote mentioned that a successful person is one who perseveres. In my opinion that can be anything in your life, may it be MCAT or gpa. However, I pay more respect to the person with the higher gpa if both of you took exactly the same classes over 4 years. Someone called a person dumb because they were able to do a practical or lab much better than another person but that very person didn't know a lick behind the concept of what they were doing and assumed the book worm as unintelligent because they were meticulous for asking many questions (not because they didn't know the procedure but rather want to know why and the theory behind it). Just because a person does well in lecture style, doesn't mean they are book smart and real life stupid. Similarly, just because the person who did well in classes but poor in mcat doesn't say anything about how dumb they are. It could be a number of mistakes or short-comings for "A" standardized test.

 

[Womb Raider]

Idunno man. Are you a high GPA low MCAT candidate?

No I was high GPA high MCAT.

It's just easier to get an A in a bunch of classes than a high score on the MCAT. You have to REALLY understand the concepts and be able to apply them in a short amount of time. I knew lots of people who had fantastic GPAs and bombed the MCAT. Almost everyone I knew that had high MCAT had at least an above-average GPA (due to not caring enough to slave over a 4.0 GPA when it isn't required to get into med school).

There's no such thing as "good standardized test takers." There are two groups of people: those that study like crazy, know the material and take a ton of practice tests, and those that don't.

Well I guess there are geniuses too, but most of us aren't geniuses.

 

[kangarooo]

In high school I ranked on the bottom 50% of my class (ouch...) but scored in the top 5% of our school for SAT scores (and our school had average SAT scores well above national average). I was just really lazy at the time and didn't want to put in any effort. It's starting to catch up to me know though. I didn't pay attention in high school chem and now I'm struggling in gen chem.

There's an enormous difference between intelligence and knowledge. You can know a lot of bio and chem to do well on the MCAT but not be very intelligent. You can also be extremely intelligent but not know very much at all. I was adopted and my biological family is very poor. They don't have enough money for anyone to go to college or buy books, yet they are very bright. My bio brothers are talented musicians and we love solving logic puzzles together.

If I asked someone in my biological family to take the MCAT, they would probably fail miserably. However, this is not because they lack intelligence, it is because they haven't learned the knowledge required to answer the questions correctly. If you asked them to take a logic test or an IQ test, they would likely do as well as a medical student if not better.

In general though:

Intelligence + Effort = GPA + Knowledge
Intelligence + Knowledge + Effort = MCAT


A nuclear physicist probably couldn't do a differential diagnosis, and a physician probably couldn't research the Higgs-Boson. However, that doesn't mean either party is less intelligent, they just haven't acquired the same knowledge.

 

[efle]

GPA vs MCAT varies by person and uni i'm sure, by the numbers for example

Nationwide the ratio of 3.8+ / 36+ is 3.2
At Wash U the ratio is 0.7
Obviously there are both kids of lopsided people everywhere though

personally, straight A's in prereqs >> top MCAT but I'm in the minority with that view

 

[NeuResurgens]

personally, straight A's in prereqs >> top MCAT but I'm in the minority with that view

I think it varies by school which they like better. Some schools (actually, I get the impression that most) slightly take GPA more heavily than MCAT because it's a better indicator of long-term work ethic. Of course, getting an MCAT to match your GPA is still important.

 

[efle]

I think it varies by school which they like better. Some schools (actually, I get the impression that most) slightly take GPA more heavily than MCAT because it's a better indicator of long-term work ethic. Of course, getting an MCAT to match your GPA is still important.

iirc cGPA sGPA and MCAT are all weighted almost exactly the same in that aamc survey. But considering that nationally, stellar GPAs are 3x as common as stellar MCATs, I'm betting the latter does the most to narrow down the applicant pool

 

[Afford]

Maybe you prepared for the MCAT better than them. For school tests, it's usually less overall content and professors usually are clear as to what is on the test. For the MCAT, there are many more topics and if your friends didn't focus on their weaknesses or they are not used to the MCAT, then they could have been ill prepared. If I prepared for the MCAT like I did a university exam, then I definitely would have scored under 30.

 

[JimmyB123]

The questions are all single/double step. You either know the answer or you don't. There is no figuring things out on the exam. Virtually no problem solving. Most students spend 10-12 hours a day for 5-6 weeks straight studying for it and the only reason people stop after 5-6 weeks is because they start to really burn out.

I started a lot earlier than most people knowing that I had less time that I could take off (4 weeks), but over my second MS2 semester did over 5000 questions (three different question banks) in preparation (plus 6 different review books, 1 general and 5 specific topic books). It is all about content. This is in contrast to the MCAT which all told really doesn't have a ton of content. Is it important to know all the basics? Absolutely, it is impossible without it. But, it just is a completely different test.

Hm so it seems that for the average medical student it's tougher to do very well on the MCAT as compared to Step1