In general, what is a good MCAT score?

[pbhigag]

I'm only a freshman now, but everybody around here seems to get high twenties to mid thirties. My parents just about died when my older sister got a 36, but from what I read here, it's not that uncommon.

What is a good, solid MCAT score?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jccripe]

people on this website are of the higher quality. A 36 is awesome. The average accepted applicant has a 31. an ok mcat is 29-30, a good mcat is 31-33, very good is 34-36 and anything above that is huge. You can go to amcas.org and look at actual percentiles if you would like a more quantitative idea.

 

[Davjc2009]

Avg. MCAT for matriculation is about 30. But most people on SDN are trying to get into very competitive schools so they shoot a little higher. 36 is a very competitive score, but is not the sole factor for getting into medical school.

 

[CardiacIntensivist]

I'm only a freshman now, but everybody around here seems to get high twenties to mid thirties. My parents just about died when my older sister got a 36, but from what I read here, it's not that uncommon.

What is a good, solid MCAT score?

In my opinion:
good MCAT score = 30+
Solid MCAT score = 35+

Fine print - no MCAT score will automatically get you into school. There's still a whole lot of earning to work on.

 

[sekem]

anything above 30 with a smaller range in the section scores!

 

[Schaden Freud]

At least a 10 in each subject area is a good score. And you may wanna shoot for above an O on the writing sample.

I'm only a freshman now, but everybody around here seems to get high twenties to mid thirties. My parents just about died when my older sister got a 36, but from what I read here, it's not that uncommon.

What is a good, solid MCAT score?

 

[deleted103644]

The truth is, the higher (or lower) the score, the less meaningful it is. The difference between a 43 and a 45 might be only 2 questions wrong on the entire test, but the difference between a 33 and a 35 is probably 10-20. The scale gets squashed as you get higher, and I assume med schools pay attention to this and don't consider the difference between a 40 and a 35 as important as the difference between a 35 and a 30.

For 2006 (very quickly - and certainly inaccurately - taken from the AAMC website):

Top 0.1% >41
Top 1% >39
Top 5% >35
Top 10% >34
Top 20% >31
Top 30% >29
Top 40% >27
Top 50% >25
Bottom 40% <24
Bottom 30% <22
Bottom 20% <20
Bottom 10% <16
Bottom 5% <14
Bottom 1% <9
Bottom 0.1% <6

 

[popbirch]

A good, solid score is any score that gets you into medical school. Some people absolutely need above 33 to counter a low GPA or something of that nature. If everything on your application is solid though you can get plenty of interviews with 27, 28, 29, and there are plenty of people every year that get in with numbers below that. So in my mind if you have done all the extra stuff that doesn't get a number attached to it, any number that is with 2 points of a particular schools average is a good score because it means that you will be competitive at that school. For me I wanted to get at least a 30 because that score would put me in the 'race' at all the schools I thought were reasonable for me to apply to.
Thats my two cents about the MCAT

 

[Anastasis]

At least a 10 in each subject area is a good score. And you may wanna shoot for above an O on the writing sample.

Agreed - 30+ (with a 10 on each section) is a good score.

 

[HumbleMD]

The rules almost seem to be changing, but it could also be because we haven't seen results from waitlists yet. Normally they say a score above a 30 and your golden, but that of course depends on where you apply. To give some perspective, I've had friends with 36's and 38's, great Extracurriculars, great GPAs, and weren't socially inept or anything, and they still didn't get into my alma mater, U of M, first round. That's why it's important to apply broadly in the process.

 

[63768]

30+ is for sure good. 27-30 is the gray area where a good GPA would offset that for a state school.

 

[Law2Doc]

Agreed - 30+ (with a 10 on each section) is a good score.

Also agree. A balanced 30 is average. Anything above average is good. A lot above average is really good. Breaking 40 is unbelievably great. And if you break 45, you are Chuck Norris.

 

[braluk]

Also agree. A balanced 30 is average. Anything above average is good. A lot above average is really good. Breaking 40 is unbelievably great. And if you break 45, you are Chuck Norris.

did L2D just make a chuck norris joke. That just speaks volumes about how powerful Chuck Norris really is

 

[Mediocrates]

Yeah, I hear Chuck Norris scored like a 48!

 

[supernareg]

he also counted to infinity.... twice.

 

[xucardsfan08]

Average score for all test takers: ~24
Average score for all applicants: ~27
Average score for matriculants: ~30

The general rule of thumb, and what most people aim for, is 30+

 

[PZMO]

IMO, there can't be a straightforward answer to this question. It depends on so many other things. A 30 is going to look great at um... Wright State for example (absolutely no offense meant), but in most cases the top-tier schools will laugh at a 30. Also, if you have a 4.0, a 30 looks much better (you look like a pretty hard worker) than if you have a 3.4...

 

[deleted103644]

I'd say anything above a 34-5 will always help you (the average accepted score at the most selective med schools), and anything below a 30 (the average overall matriculant score) will hurt you. How much depends on the rest of your app.

 

[Disinence2]

A good MCAT score is whatever gets you in!

 

[Haemulon]

I agree with all of those that said a good MCAT score is one that is about the average for matriculants or above (currently about 30 is the national average for those accepted). However, a good MCAT is also a relative thing depending upon the school that you are applying to. A 30 applying to Johns Hopkins or Harvard is not strong at all, but a 30 applying to one's regular state school could be very strong. Now also keep in mind that having a couple point shy, even like a 28, is not a deal breaker. It is still al decent score, but the rest of your application has to be even better in this case. As Disinence2 said, the bottom line is that a good enough score is one that gets you in ... but you won't find that out until the end. Better to play the averages I think and shoot high right from the start.

Also keep in mind that these numbers quoted on this thread are for allopathic schools.

 

[hp540]

A good MCAT score is not the be all and end all. I scored a 39 (and the rest of my application is pretty good), and so far I've been rejected pre-interview. There's also some chance involved in the process. In my opinion, a 30+ is sufficient...the higher you go, the more meaningless the score becomes.

 

[Hassler]

A good MCAT score is not the be all and end all. I scored a 39 (and the rest of my application is pretty good), and so far I've been rejected pre-interview. There's also some chance involved in the process. In my opinion, a 30+ is sufficient...the higher you go, the more meaningless the score becomes.

I wouldn't say that. High stats can potentially get you free rides to med school. And you can potentially have a not as stellar interview and still get in, whereas you probably need to rock the interview with a low score.

 

[Tired]

I wouldn't say that. High stats can potentially get you free rides to med school. And you can potentially have a not as stellar interview and still get in, whereas you probably need to rock the interview with a low score.

I have to agree with this. Let me tell you my story.

The interview for my state school consisted of one-on-one interviews with two faculty members, and a final interview with the Dean. The morning of my Dean's interview, I woke up, had breakfast and checked my email. In my inbox was my interview schedule, and I discovered I was supposed to be at the Dean's office at 9:30am, not 3:30pm as I had thought. It was 11:00am.

I called his secretary and explained that I had screwed up my time, and she told me, "He can still meet with you if you get here before noon. But don't be late, because he is scheduled to testify before the State House at 1pm." I got dressed, jumped in the car, and drove to the med school. Parking was horendous, and by the time I got to his office, it was 12:30p. The first words out of his mouth when I walked in were, "Where the hell have you been?!"

I figured I was boned.

But oh wait, I have a 40+ MCAT. I will be graduating from this school in four months.

 

[degoo_]

A good MCAT score is not the be all and end all. I scored a 39 (and the rest of my application is pretty good), and so far I've been rejected pre-interview. There's also some chance involved in the process. In my opinion, a 30+ is sufficient...the higher you go, the more meaningless the score becomes.

I wouldn't say that. High stats can potentially get you free rides to med school. And you can potentially have a not as stellar interview and still get in, whereas you probably need to rock the interview with a low score.

I think he says that (and I agree with him) because we are in Canada, where cutoffs are more important than the score itself. At some schools, someone with a 41 is no different than someone with a 31, since both may have met the computer-filtered cutoffs.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

I wouldn't say that. High stats can potentially get you free rides to med school. And you can potentially have a not as stellar interview and still get in, whereas you probably need to rock the interview with a low score.

I don't know about this. I have really high stats (40+, 3.7+) and I by no means am getting invites everywhere, let alone scholarships. I think if someone has a 35+ med schools dont really care. The only time I think a stellar mcat can make a difference is if the applicant has a low gpa (especially bcpm gpa) and thus shows scientific prowess by a high mcat. To get scholarships, one has to be solid through and through, even in intangibles.

but I'm also asian indian; that probably hurts my chances at a lot of schools since too many indians want to be doctors.

 

[degoo_]

Stolenspats: what do you mean no interviews? your mdapps has acceptances! congrats on those. you'll probably end up with more acceptances than my number of applications!

 

[Hassler]

I think he says that (and I agree with him) because we are in Canada, where cutoffs are more important than the score itself. At some schools, someone with a 41 is no different than someone with a 31, since both may have met the computer-filtered cutoffs.

I see. But just FYI, at some US schools, there are high GPA/MCAT cutoffs for automatic interviews.

Example, UMich grants auto interviews to out-of-staters with 36+ MCAT and 3.8+ GPA (I think). In that case, 41 is definitely different from a 31.

The moral of the story is that you should check what cutoffs schools you are applying to have before applying. That will be the most efficient way of spending your money.

 

[Hassler]

Stolenspats: what do you mean no interviews? your mdapps have acceptances! congrats on those. you'll probably end up with more acceptances than my number of applications!

He's saying everywhere. It's virtually impossible to get interviews everywhere if you apply to 15+ schools, unless you have a 45 MCAT and 4.0 GPA.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Stolenspats: what do you mean no interviews? your mdapps have acceptances! congrats on those. you'll probably end up with more acceptances than my number of applications!

nah, i didnt mean I have no interviews. I'm just agreeing with what was mentioned earlier that schools likely dont care if an applicant scores higher than a 34 or 35 (with a well-rounded score).

My point was that a superb mcat score is likely not a key factor in giving out scholarships. My evidence is that many people with high mcats dont even get interviews at some places, let alone get in. I am waiting on some schools, one being washu. go figure, I thought they loved high stats, argh.

 

[AnesthesiaMD]

anything over 30 is good.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

He's saying everywhere. It's virtually impossible to get interviews everywhere if you apply to 15+ schools, unless you have a 45 MCAT and 4.0 GPA.

there was a rhode scholar from UF with I think a 43 mcat that got in everywhere he applied. I also know of a kid from Duke (my alma mater) that got in everywhere he applied last year as well. And by everywhere, I mean all schools that he applied to, which happened to all be in the top 15 or so.

 

[Funky]

a good mcat score is a mcat score that will get you into med school

 

[degoo_]

stolen: here's hoping for WashU for you. It was the only school in the US I really wanted to attend, but my stats are mediocre by their standards and the tuition . . . yea..

 

[DocOB]

The MCAT is more than adcoms will tell you it is. I have a 28 P (9, 10, 9,) a 3.8 at a good state school and killer EC's. The only thing I don't have is research experience because I have had to work my way through school and haven't had the time. Moral of the story, I am getting no love from allopathic schools, even the schools in my state. Add a few points to my MCAT and all of the sudden I'm in a hell of a lot better situation.

So you will hear "it's the whole application that matters, not just the score". Which is true to an extent so don't be discouraged if you don't achieve your sister's stellar score, but score in the thirties and you will be golden. You clearly have the intiative to do the rest of the things, EC's etc. Higher MCAT = earlier interviews, easy process, less grays hairs at age 22. I wish you all the luck in the world.

BTW, I'm not kidding about the grays.

 

[sprinkibrio]

I don't know where these people are getting their info. Wasn't the average MCAT for matriculants 28? Average for people who applied somewhere in 24-26 range?

I would retake with a 28 or less. A 30 is good, but I would aim for a 33.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't know where these people are getting their info. Wasn't the average MCAT for matriculants 28?

According to the 2006 data on the AAMC website, for matriculants, the mean VR was 9.8, PS was 10.1 and BS was 10.5, so the overall mean of the 3 sections combined is just over a 30. See http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2006/2006mcatgpa.htm

 

[Eric Lindros]

Average score for all test takers: ~24

Just as an FYI, the average score for all test takers last spring was a 25.6. August was 24.7 The combined was 25.1

April 2006 has some sick test takers. I think it was the highest average in recent history, if not all time.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Just as an FYI, the average score for all test takers last spring was a 25.6. August was 24.7 The combined was 25.1

April 2006 has some sick test takers. I think it was the highest average in recent history, if not all time.

in general i think august usually has higher averages bc it attracts premeds that dont want to study for the mcat during the course of the year while take courses? at least thats what ive heard.

it sucks to have taken it this past april then, your individual score may have been a few points higher had it been another session. though its hard to know, maybe the test (as an aggregate of its versions) was slightly easier this past april?

 

[Law2Doc]

in general i think august usually has higher averages bc it attracts premeds that dont want to study for the mcat during the course of the year while take courses? at least thats what ive heard.

Not really -- August traditionally attracted more retakers, who on average one would predict have lower scores because they already flubbed it once. This will all be different now that there are so many test offerings.

 

[deleted103644]

there was a rhode scholar from UF with I think a 43 mcat that got in everywhere he applied. I also know of a kid from Duke (my alma mater) that got in everywhere he applied last year as well. And by everywhere, I mean all schools that he applied to, which happened to all be in the top 15 or so.

Had those guys applied to some lower tier schools, they would have probably gotten a rejection or two as well. Some schools will turn you down if they think you are treating them as a safety (and assume you will get into other places).

 

[Anastasis]

Not really -- August traditionally attracted more retakers, who on average one would predict have lower scores because they already flubbed it once. This will all be different now that there are so many test offerings.

That would be my logic as well... but I agree. I think all that has gone out with window with the new CBT.

 

[HumbleMD]

That would be my logic as well... but I agree. I think all that has gone out with window with the new CBT.

But at the same time re-takers traditionally go up in their score. Also, these folks have had all summer to study. It's almost impossible to analyze. Speaking of the CBT, how many dates is the test even offered anymore, and when? I had a friend ask me when they should take the test and I had no clue.

 

[Anastasis]

But at the same time re-takers traditionally go up in their score. Also, these folks have had all summer to study. It's almost impossible to analyze. Speaking of the CBT, how many dates is the test even offered anymore, and when? I had a friend ask me when they should take the test and I had no clue.

Do they traditionally go up in score? Where did you read that?

Also, testing dates for 2007:
http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/datesdeadlines.pdf
I don't know how constant those dates will stay from year to year.

 

[Eric Lindros]

It's almost impossible to analyze.

You could look at the AAMC examinee data, which shows August averages consistently lower than April every year, which pretty much confirms what l2d said. April test takers were also more of the gunner type, due to the fact that August puts you behind.

On a side note, I doubt the test is getting easier. I think it has more to do with the test having not been revised for a while. Give the test a few years to sit around and test prep companies, students, and the general public will slowly get better at figuring it out. Hence the steady increase in score averages in recent years.

But as someone else mentioned, cbt will be a whole new ballgame.

 

[degoo_]

Just as an FYI, the average score for all test takers last spring was a 25.6. August was 24.7 The combined was 25.1

April 2006 has some sick test takers. I think it was the highest average in recent history, if not all time.

Aren't MCAT scores standardized only to that particular test sitting? So the standardized average should always be the same. Only the raw mark that corresponds to the standardized score should change. I don't see why standardized averages would change per sitting.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

You could look at the AAMC examinee data, which shows August averages consistently lower than April every year, which pretty much confirms what l2d said. April test takers were also more of the gunner type, due to the fact that August puts you behind.

isnt the test scoring system entirely standardized? (meaning bell curve?)

i have heard that one has to get a greater proportion of questions right in the august test (in general) to get any certain score (meaning, for ex, its easier to get a 10 in verbal in the spring test than the august test in terms of the number of questions you need to get right). i believe my premed advising told me this, or it was just rumor maybe?

 

[Eric Lindros]

Aren't MCAT scores standardized only to that particular test sitting? So the standardized average should always be the same. Only the raw mark that corresponds to the standardized score should change. I don't see why standardized averages would change per sitting.

I don't get it either. That's something you would need to ask the AAMC about

 

[deleted103644]

Aren't MCAT scores standardized only to that particular test sitting? So the standardized average should always be the same. Only the raw mark that corresponds to the standardized score should change. I don't see why standardized averages would change per sitting.

Here's my guess. They curve it for each test, so that means that for a given test, there are only 15 possible scores for a person to get. They fix the percentages for each score, but they also have to match it to a certain number of questions right. They can't arbitrarily decide that one person who got 60/80 questions right gets a 10 and another gets a 9, even if that would make the percentages work better. I'm sure this can change the wiggle room in the test average by a point or two, especially with scores towards the extremes of the scale.

 

[degoo_]

That makes sense. A discrepancy between the translation of raw scored to curved.

 

[BNSN]

Once you break 36, it's all over. A 12 on each section is the best anyone can seriously hope for. Anything above that is fantastic.