I've been told not to retake a score above 50%…

[700003]

So I've been hearing conflicting advice regarding what's considered competitive for MCAT 2015…The AAMC says the central range (500) is the score to focus on right? So shouldn't any score above 50% on the new MCAT be good enough?

Recently, some admissions representatives who came to my school and my pre-health advisor have mentioned that as long as we get above 50 percentile, it is good enough to be accepted. But everyone on SDN seems to think otherwise, so I'm real confused. Specifically, I would like to know if my score of 57-67% will be considered competitive for MD. I thought it wouldn't be, but my advisor has me thinking otherwise…

Would love any input from adcoms too! @Goro @LizzyM @gyngyn ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

The AAMC re-scaled the new test in the hope that reviewers would focus on the central tendency.
I am entirely sure that schools will continue to look for students much like the ones they are traditionally able to recruit.

Although a single strong score is always the best strategy, a score that is inconsistent with success must be repeated.
One should only re-take when completely sure that significant improvement has been made. By definition, scores at the top of the scale cannot be significantly improved!

A score at the 50th percentile will only work for a small group of applicants, usually at mission-based schools.

A score in the middle of the range you mention is likely to be seen much like a 27. It will be good enough in some states, in some years, for some applicants, but is well below the national median for accepted students (31).

 

[MerciMerci]

57%-67% is converting to about a 26-28.

If this is 26 or 27 (55%-61%), I would say retake. If you are scoring a 28 (66-67%), the decision is yours, and you need to decide if you can get into the schools that you are applying to with this score.

Another thing to consider is whether the score is balanced or not. Also, were you scoring significantly better on the practice tests? If not, you need to study more before retaking and ensure you are consistently scoring significantly higher.

 

[nwts]

I'm not an adcom, but I'll share my thoughts in case they may be helpful to you. I would think that 50th percentile is not the best thing to shoot for. First of all, remember that only about 44% of applicants get accepted. This would tend to suggest that being at the 50th percentile of applicants is not desirable. Though there will be some people who get in with scores that are significantly below the average score of an accepted applicant, those situations are the exception, not the rule, and they generally have something else going for them. Additionally, it isn't even fair to look at all of the scores achieved by MCAT takers and assume those to be the score range for applicants. Nearly everyone who scores at or below the 20th percentile won't apply with that score because they know they don't have a good chance of getting in with that score. So basically, if you're at the 50th percentile of MCAT takers, you're at a significantly lower percentile of applicants, and an even lower percentile of admitted students.

 

[Lucca]

Echoing what others have said: no matter what lip service is paid to "competency" based admission metrics at the end of the day the 99th percentile score is always going to be selected for. We will see after this admissions cycle but I wouldn't be surprised if the bar is still at whatever the equivalent for 30+ is.

 

[GrapesofRath]

26-27 mcat scores are lethal for MD admission. IF you have an interest in DO you are fine but that won't be good enough for MD admission in most cases

 

[Goro]

Retake a 50. Hold on an 80.

 

[efle]

The AAMC re-scaled the new test in the hope that reviewers would focus on the central tendency.

What kind of nonsense even is that AAMC statement? The old MCAT produced a nice bell curve with scores near the median predicting successful completion of med school/competency.

What are they going to change so the new bell curve is read differently? Percentiles have always been and will always be percentiles. They can't change what percentile (only what percent) marks competency unless the test taker population significantly shifts.

Just seems weird to be that AAMC would behave so unreasonably and make ridiculous claims.

 

[gyngyn]

What kind of nonsense even is that AAMC statement? The old MCAT produced a nice bell curve with scores near the median predicting successful completion of med school/competency.

What are they going to change so the new bell curve is read differently? Percentiles have always been and will always be percentiles. They can't change what percentile (only what percent) marks competency unless the test taker population significantly shifts.

Just seems weird to be that AAMC would behave so unreasonably and make ridiculous claims.

I presume this is a rhetorical question!

 

[efle]

I presume this is a rhetorical question!

It is indeed. The actual question is why they put forth this nonsense as if they expect med schools to believe it, as if changing the score scale could change the percent of the premed population that is competent.

 

[Lawpy]

Just seems weird to be that AAMC would behave so unreasonably and make ridiculous claims.

How can the AAMC be unreasonable if they're the ones creating and authorizing a test that assesses reasoning skills?

 

[efle]

How can the AAMC be unreasonable if they're the ones creating and authorizing a test that assesses reasoning skills?

A certain percentage of people have the competency to become doctors. On the old test the percentile demonstrating that sat just above median (eg, 40% of test takers had competency). They claim a rescaling can make the median demonstrate competency (eg 50% of test takers have competency). That is impossible/unreasonable.

 

[Lawpy]

A certain percentage of people have the competency to become doctors. On the old test the percentile demonstrating that sat just above median (eg, 40% of test takers had competency). They claim a rescaling can make the median demonstrate competency (eg 50% of test takers have competency). That is impossible/unreasonable.

I understand that. It was a quip against the AAMC for authorizing an exam that measures test-takers reasoning and analytical skills.... when they themselves are being unreasonable in their attempts to "improve" the scaling.

 

[Grace184]

Retake a 50. Hold on an 80.

When should we double down?

 

[Affiche]

@efle i think they rescaled it and push for a focus towards the center because data showed that MCAT testers with median + scores were just as capable of passing boards the first time and graduating med school in 4 years. The reasoning is that there has always been a larger percentage of applicants competent enough to handle med school, but many of them weren't even getting looked at because 30 became a cutoff.

 

[efle]

@efle i think they rescaled it and push for a focus towards the center because data showed that MCAT testers with median + scores were just as capable of passing step 1 the first time and graduating med school in 4 years. The reasoning is that there has always been a larger percentage of applicants competent enough to handle med school, but many of them weren't even getting looked at because 30 became a cutoff.

1) The cutoff was slightly higher than median to predict successful completion, hence my 40% example.
2) 30+ scores are valued for a different reason than predicting completion: they predict (reasonably well, ~0.7) better step scores

 

[gyngyn]

@efle i think they rescaled it and push for a focus towards the center because data showed that MCAT testers with median + scores were just as capable of passing step 1 the first time and graduating med school in 4 years. The reasoning is that there has always been a larger percentage of applicants competent enough to handle med school, but many of them weren't even getting looked at because 30 became a cutoff.

The AAMC has indicated support for a system that uses the MCAT as a measure of competency (not excellence).
I understand and even sympathize with this idea.
Lacking any support from the folks who run the schools, this will go exactly, nowhere.

 

[LizzyM]

To put this in simple terms, AAMC wants schools to consider applicants who are "good enough" (equivalent of an old MCAT of 26) rather than considering only those applicants who did very well.

What would our classes look like if we took those who did "well enough" on the test but who were selected for other attributes such as curiosity, compassion, tenacity, and dedication.

 

[Gladiolus23]

They have indicated support for a system that uses the MCAT as a measure of competency (not excellence).
I understand and even sympathize with this idea.
Lacking any support from the folks who run the schools, this will go exactly, nowhere.

So basically med schools will continue to accept people with ~80%+ ? I'm guessing the general consensus is that everyone should retake the MCAT if it's below a ~70%-75% for MD, since schools will be ignoring the "focus on the 500!" request from AAMC

Also is it certain that a 70% percentile on the new MCAT equates to a 28-29? Will adcoms continue to follow this chart to assess percentiles? https://www.aamc.org/students/download/85332/data/combined08.pdf

 

[gyngyn]

So basically med schools will continue to accept people with ~80%+ ? I'm guessing the general consensus is that everyone should retake the MCAT if it's below a ~70%-75% for MD, since schools will be ignoring the "focus on the 500!" request from AAMC

Also is it certain that a 70% percentile on the new MCAT equates to a 28-29? Will adcoms continue to follow this chart to assess percentiles? https://www.aamc.org/students/download/85332/data/combined08.pdf

We are supposed to find out on the 16th.

 

[040111333]

To put this in simple terms, AAMC wants schools to consider applicants who are "good enough" (equivalent of an old MCAT of 26) rather than considering only those applicants who did very well.

What would our classes look like if we took those who did "well enough" on the test but who were selected for other attributes such as curiosity, compassion, tenacity, and dedication.

How likely is this to happen? I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure when/if med schools will start accepting candidates with mediocre MCAT scores, but good attributes. I guess this is wishful thinking but maybe they will start placing less importance on MCAT next cycle?

 

[gyngyn]

How likely is this to happen? I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure when/if med schools will start accepting candidates with mediocre MCAT scores, but good attributes. Maybe they will start placing less importance on MCAT next cycle…

Do not bet on it.

 

[Lawpy]

To put this in simple terms, AAMC wants schools to consider applicants who are "good enough" (equivalent of an old MCAT of 26) rather than considering only those applicants who did very well.

What would our classes look like if we took those who did "well enough" on the test but who were selected for other attributes such as curiosity, compassion, tenacity, and dedication.

It wouldn't change because it's a rational tendency to select applicants with higher MCAT scores. AAMC's objective for the MCAT to test for competency rather than excellence doesn't change the fact that the MCAT provides a quantifiable measure (with a corresponding percentile) that can be compared objectively.

Comparing applicants with subjective evaluations on their ECs will only make the application process much more inefficient.

 

[gyngyn]

It wouldn't change because it's a rational tendency to select applicants with higher MCAT scores. AAMC's objective for MCAT to test for competency rather than excellence doesn't change the fact that the MCAT provides a quantifiable measure (with a corresponding percentile) that can be compared objectively

In reality, there is a natural tendency to select from the scores in which the school has traditionally been successful.
These are not always the highest scores. It does no good to interview the top 300 scores in your applicant pool if you can only matriculate 3 of them!

 

[Lawpy]

In reality, there is a natural tendency to select from the scores in which the school has traditionally been successful.
These are not always the highest scores.

Perhaps but that defeats the AAMC objective in evaluating the MCAT only for competency. If a 26-equivalent is indeed strongly recommended, schools will still deviate to the ranges they feel comfortable. So ultimately, we return to the status quo before the AAMC mandate.

Still doesn't change the fact that the MCAT provides an objective evaluation on an applicant's academic background. So assessing for competencies just messes up what was fine initially. It makes the poor students feel good (and that's fine), but it kills the incentive of good students to do optimal on the exam.

 

[gyngyn]

Perhaps but that defeats the AAMC objective in evaluating the MCAT only for competency. If a 26-equivalent is indeed strongly recommended, schools will still deviate to the ranges they feel comfortable. So ultimately, we return to a status quo before the AAMC mandate.

Still doesn't change the fact that the MCAT provides an objective evaluation on an applicant's academic background. So assessing for competencies just messes up what was fine initially. It makes the poor students feel good (and that's fine), but it kills the incentive of good students to do optimal on the exam.

Yes.

 

[Stagg737]

Perhaps but that defeats the AAMC objective in evaluating the MCAT only for competency. If a 26-equivalent is indeed strongly recommended, schools will still deviate to the ranges they feel comfortable. So ultimately, we return to the status quo before the AAMC mandate.

Still doesn't change the fact that the MCAT provides an objective evaluation on an applicant's academic background. So assessing for competencies just messes up what was fine initially. It makes the poor students feel good (and that's fine), but it kills the incentive of good students to do optimal on the exam.

Not about your quote, just wanted to say that may be the coolest avatar I've ever seen. I think I've just been watching it, mesmerized, for about 5 minutes now...

 

[lantx]

So are high MCAT scores worthless? Everything above 80th percentile will be looked at the same? Great...

 

[gyngyn]

So are high MCAT scores worthless? Everything above 80th percentile will be looked at the same? Great...

It's more like 97%+ are the same.

 

[efle]

The AAMC has indicated support for a system that uses the MCAT as a measure of competency (not excellence).
I understand and even sympathize with this idea.
Lacking any support from the folks who run the schools, this will go exactly, nowhere.

So why don't they give med schools the finger and just switch to a Pass/Competency vs No Pass system? Med schools could just be forcibly blinded to excellence beyond competency that way.

 

[efle]

It's more like 97%+

So are high MCAT scores worthless? Everything above 80th percentile will be looked at the same? Great...

And it's only 97%+ for some schools. $50 says Wustl will keep up its 99th percentile median.

 

[gyngyn]

So why don't they give med schools the finger and just switch to a Pass/Competency vs No Pass system? Med schools could just be forcibly blinded to excellence beyond competency that way.

You are asking me?
When I become king of the puddin'heads I'll let you know!

 

[Affiche]

Selecting scores that are "higher" would be fine if there wasn't a cutoff. My issue with the old scale is that scoring below a 30 was basically lethal for MD, but a score of 30 vs 29 doesn't mean much in terms of future success. Anyone who scored a 29 was almost doomed regardless of how otherwise qualified they were (obviously this varies by state, but by and large the chance of admission was significantly better for a 30 vs 29).

My hope is that for the new scale there won't be a cutoff number or percentile, but I know this won't happen lol.

 

[efle]

Selecting scores that are "higher" would be fine if there wasn't a cutoff. My issue with the old scale is that scoring below a 30 was basically lethal for MD, but a score of 30 vs 29 doesn't mean much in terms of future success. Anyone who scored a 29 was almost doomed regardless of how otherwise qualified they were (obviously this varies by state, but by and large the chance of admission was significantly better for a 30 vs 29).

My hope is that for the new scale there won't be a cutoff number or percentile, but I know this won't happen lol.

It's always been percentile based, there was nothing magic about the number itself. What mattered was the relative/percentile it indicated. It will continue to be this way.

 

[Grace184]

Hey, we could be all be like that pre med guy who started his own one person boycott of med schools. You go buddy.

 

[Lawpy]

Hey, we could be all be like that pre med guy who started his own one person boycott of med schools. You go buddy.

Except medical schools really won't follow the AAMC competency-based initiative. They have their own criteria to follow.

 

[Affiche]

It's always been percentile based, there was nothing magic about the number itself. What mattered was the relative/percentile it indicated. It will continue to be this way.

Each number corresponds to a range of scales, though. Adcoms don't care where you fall in the range of a 30, just that your score is a 30. Likewise, a high 29 is almost identical in percentile to a low 30, with maybe a difference of .1 in percentile. But, scoring a 30= much better than 29.

I think there definitely became a focus on the number, both from an adcom and an applicant perspective, and I hope that at least for a few years with the new scale that isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Grace184]

Except medical schools really won't follow the AAMC competency-based initiative. They have their own criteria to follow.

I really didn't know what his boycott was about in the first place.

 

[Lawpy]

I really didn't know what his boycott was about in the first place.

I guess it was on too much student loans? That thread was a disaster.

 

[Affiche]

But yes, I agree @efle, it's going to remain essentially the same regardless. There will still be a cutoff.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

To put this in simple terms, AAMC wants schools to consider applicants who are "good enough" (equivalent of an old MCAT of 26) rather than considering only those applicants who did very well.

What would our classes look like if we took those who did "well enough" on the test but who were selected for other attributes such as curiosity, compassion, tenacity, and dedication.

I understand the logic behind this, but what about the schools who expect a 235+ step 1 average from their classes?

 

[gyngyn]

I understand the logic behind this, but what about the schools who expect a 235+ step 1 average from their classes?

Some very good schools have very weak scores.

 

[bluepeach9]

Some very good schools have very weak scores.

Huh, interesting. Do you know some examples of schools like this? Or is there a way students can see a school's step 1 average score? I don't think MSAR provides that info…

 

[gyngyn]

Huh, interesting. Do you know some examples of schools like this? Or is there a way students can see a school's step 1 average score? I don't think MSAR provides that info…

They often publish them on the website around match time.
I'd rather protect my anonymity, so I won't categorize the CA schools!

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Some very good schools have very weak scores.

Even some of the more selective schools?

 

[gyngyn]

Even some of the more selective schools?

Yes.

 

[Banco]

Selecting scores that are "higher" would be fine if there wasn't a cutoff. My issue with the old scale is that scoring below a 30 was basically lethal for MD, but a score of 30 vs 29 doesn't mean much in terms of future success. Anyone who scored a 29 was almost doomed regardless of how otherwise qualified they were (obviously this varies by state, but by and large the chance of admission was significantly better for a 30 vs 29).

My hope is that for the new scale there won't be a cutoff number or percentile, but I know this won't happen lol.

http://edge.studentdoctor.net/wamc/All_Applicants.png

According to this there is a similar drop in acceptance rate when MCAT goes from 31 --> 30 and from 30 --> 29. It is a pretty steady decrease from 32 --> 27. Just to compare a 3.9/29, 3.8/30, 3.7/31, 3.7/32 have similar acceptance rates (70-75%). So a 29 MCAT is not doom compared to a 30, depending on the context.

At scores of 33+ it starts to level off.

 

[bluepeach9]

They often publish them on the website around match time.
I'd rather protect my anonymity, so I won't categorize the CA schools!

Even some of the more selective schools?

Yes.

That's fine! But do you have any idea why this would be? Could it be because schools that are more research-focused tend to under-train students clinically?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

That's fine! But do you have any idea why this would be? Could it be because schools that are more research-focused tend to under-train students clinically?

With a few exceptions, Step 1 is taken before the clinical years. Additionally, I'm under the impression that the top research schools tend to have a strong clinical focus.

 

[bluepeach9]

With a few exceptions, Step 1 is taken before the clinical years. Additionally, I'm under the impression that the top research schools tend to have a strong clinical focus.

Yes, that's what I would think too. That's why I'm confused why a selective school could have very weak scores especially when their students are clearly good at standardized test-taking due to high MCATs