From 4th year Med student, MCAT score does not =STEP scores!

[HarryPlopper]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The job market being closed for pathology is an Internet myth propagated by I have no idea. There are jobs, but it is a field where jobs come via networking. Every Fellow graduating from programs I visited has jobs lined up.

It is the BEST specialty. I can assure you. I switched VERY late (after applying for another specialty) but I realized this is where I need to be.

Job marketing being closed for pathology is true only if you are intent in staying in only one, competitive location. It's also important to mention that everyone in path now does at least one subspecialty, often 2, even 3.

If you have FA with you during Step 1, you could probably score 250-260.

That's stretching it don't you think? It doesn't matter if you have all your board prep with you if you don't know what to look for.

 

[notbobtrustme]

That's stretching it don't you think? It doesn't matter if you have all your board prep with you if you don't know what to look for.

I'm studying for Step 1 right now and you pretty much know what you are looking for 95% of the time, you just might not know that one stupid fact the question is testing. For example, I had a couple oncology pharm questions today and I knew the drugs the question stem was talking about (which didn't identify the drug by name). It was all a matter of identifying the correct side effect presented by that drug (eg is it alopecia or is it diarrhea or is it peripheral neuropathy); that would take all of 20 seconds to look up.

 

[reedsposer22]

That's stretching it don't you think? It doesn't matter if you have all your board prep with you if you don't know what to look for.

It is indeed stretching it. EVERY student in my class had First Aid, LITERALLY every one. Not too many of us scored in the 250-260 range. Lots in the low 230s, a good amount in the upper 230s. 240s-250s not so much. 260s= rare.

 

[notbobtrustme]

It is indeed stretching it. EVERY student in my class had First Aid, LITERALLY every one. Not too many of us scored in the 250-260 range. Lots in the low 230s, a good amount in the upper 230s. 240s-250s not so much. 260s= rare.

I think you mis-read my statement. I was saying that if you had FA with you during Step 1, then you can score 250-260. Having all your MCAT stuff with you won't turn a 30 into a 36.

 

[HarryPlopper]

I'm studying for Step 1 right now and you pretty much know what you are looking for 95% of the time, you just might not know that one stupid fact the question is testing. For example, I had a couple oncology pharm questions today and I knew the drugs the question stem was talking about (which didn't identify the drug by name). It was all a matter of identifying the correct side effect presented by that drug (eg is it alopecia or is it diarrhea or is it peripheral neuropathy); that would take all of 20 seconds to look up.

Detail questions are rarely the harder questions in the Steps. The harder ones are the ones that are misleading/vague so you have the wrong mindset when you approach those questions. Then there are those ethics and statistic questions that look funny.

 

[sourdoughllama]

The pearson correlation is just the regular old correlation everyone is used to seeing. 0.328 is also pretty strong for something as diverse as test scores. It's really the p value that matters anyways. Very rarely will you see pearson correlations above that unless you're in engineering where everything is more controlled.

Why would test scores warrant such a low correlation? If it indeed was a good correlation, I'd expect something closer to 0.5-0.6. So why is M1/M2 performance vs USMLE 0.7?

 

[link2swim06]

I'll assume most of the people reading this post have taken the MCAT but not any of the USMLE tests. Having been through the MCAT, Step 1, step 2 ck, and step 2 cs I'd just like the clarify one thing.

Correlation is only valid when you look at a bunch of people. It should NOT be used to predict one person's score.

So in layman's terms if you scored a 26 on your MCAT can you get a 270 on step 1?

Yes.

If you scored a 40 on the MCAT could you fail step 1?

Yes.


It's all about what you put into it. That includes both quality and quantity.


BOTTOMLINE: If you can make it into a US allo med school I bet ANYONE could score a 240+ if you put the time into a study plan that fit your learning style.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

UCC School of Medicine in PR has a 20-21 average MCAT and I was also told that their Step1 average is right around national average...So much for that MCAT/Step1 strong correlation!

 

[gumdrops]

UCC School of Medicine in PR has a 20-21 average MCAT and I was also told that their Step1 average is right around national average...So much for that MCAT/Step1 strong correlation!

Oh yeah, the low MCAT could be due to the Verbal section. That part could kill a lot of non-native English speakers.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Why would test scores warrant such a low correlation? If it indeed was a good correlation, I'd expect something closer to 0.5-0.6. So why is M1/M2 performance vs USMLE 0.7?

There are just wayyy too many other variables that could affect USMLE performance but not MCAT performance (extra stress, differences in time for preparation, changes in living condition, etc etc etc). Even M1/M2 performance has an r-value of ~0.7 which means only around 50% of variability in USLME is described by M1/M2 performance even though the USMLE is testing pretty much nothing but M1/M2.

Most stats books I've seen - and even most papers in fields like psych/natural sciences - see 0.4 as a pretty strong correlation. 0.7 would be extremely strong for them. On the other hand in physics and engineering anything short of 0.9 would be considered pretty weak. It just depends on how controlled your observations can be, given your field. Think of it this way - even though we have extremely minimal data (no SES, no gender, no nothing) on these students we can still use the MCAT to explain ~10% of the USMLE scores. I don't know I think that's pretty good. If you're building a bridge it's horrible 😛

I would be interested to see how strong of a correlation a linear regression (where you can actually include other covariates in your model) would produce instead of just a simple pearson correlation.

 

[mcloaf]

UCC School of Medicine in PR has a 20-21 average MCAT and I was also told that their Step1 average is right around national average...So much for that MCAT/Step1 strong correlation!

I wish this post were a joke, but I'm concerned that it's not.

 

[Psai]

UCC School of Medicine in PR has a 20-21 average MCAT and I was also told that their Step1 average is right around national average...So much for that MCAT/Step1 strong correlation!

Most schools have a Step1 average around the national average.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Most schools have a Step1 average around the national average.

This made me lol.

 

[malaika]

Should I tell residency people I am in the Triple 9 society? YES!!! LMAO..

 

[DermViser]

MCAT is a thinking man's test. You only need to know 300-500 facts for the MCAT to be golden, the rest comes down to reading comprehension and interpretations (eg here's a graph, what does it mean).

Step 1 tests something like 15,000 facts. On top of that, you have to be able to integrate different disciplines together. IMO, Step 1 is the "easier" test, but it requires much more work than the MCAT. At a certain point, you won't be able to score better on the MCAT, even if you have all your prep books with you. If you have FA with you during Step 1, you could probably score 250-260.

Annotated, maybe. And that's REALLY stretching it. But FA alone? No way.

 

[reedsposer22]

I think you mis-read my statement. I was saying that if you had FA with you during Step 1, then you can score 250-260. Having all your MCAT stuff with you won't turn a 30 into a 36.

Lol HARD. I mis-read completely, I had no idea you meant literally have FA with you! HAHAHA

 

[Chillywilly]

On a serious note - why can't the MCAT mimic the Step 1? Seriously, just make the MCAT an undergraduate version of the Step 1.

 

[RueTay]

MCAT: 27, 24, 26 (I know, I know, I provably shouldn't have gotten in)

Step 1: 238
Step 2: 262

Fortunately absolutely no one cares about your MCAT once you are in med school so talk about it all you want now because it will soon matter ZERO.

As the data suggests, there is a weak but present correlation between MCAT and step 1, but most people will be have reasonably similar percentiles. At least in the ballpark.

However, the material and format is totally different, which plays into some peoples strengths and other's weaknesses so dramatic jumps happen.

No correlation to step two and here is why...

What people don't realize is that you have tons of control over what you get on step 2. It is an easier test because the pool of test takers is on the whole less prepared.

Some people care about step 2, but most people just need to pass. If you aren't applying for a competitive specialty or if you rocked step 1, you might just take two weeks off in your mid-late fourth year to take the test. They don't even include their score in the ERAS.

Compare that to someone (me) who took 3 weeks off at the start of 4th year immediately following my 3rd year IM rotation (step 2 is 50+% IM). The test difficulty felt the same but my results were much different.

Some residency programs don't care about step 2 but more and more are starting to. If you are able to show a strong uptrend it will definitely help you match into something competitive (it did for me).

Hopefully you aren't in that situation because blowing off step 2 is a lot easier, but it's something to keep in mind if you need it.

 

[mcloaf]

On a serious note - why can't the MCAT mimic the Step 1? Seriously, just make the MCAT an undergraduate version of the Step 1.

So...you're proposing that you take a test about Step 1 material before you've learned it?

 

[wiloghby]

So...you're proposing that you take a test about Step 1 material before you've learned it?

I'm going to try to speak for @Chillywilly here, and say that he meant the MCAT should be similar in format and style to STEP 1, but should instead test you on undergraduate subjects. Ostensibly, that means way more emphasis on memorization..while using your critical thinking skills to tie things together.

Of course, I'm not sure how that would work exactly. It's hard to have vignettes when you don't have patients. And you can't have patients if you haven't started learning medicine yet.

I would be willing to bet that my STEP 1 percentile will be lower than my MCAT percentile.. even my MCAT percentile relative to matriculants rather than just test-takers. I'm much better at thinking than memorizing every single detail. Hopefully I can do it well enough to get through medical school though....

 

[knv2u]

I would be willing to bet that my STEP 1 percentile will be lower than my MCAT percentile.. even my MCAT percentile relative to matriculants rather than just test-takers. I'm much better at thinking than memorizing every single detail. Hopefully I can do it well enough to get through medical school though....

+1

 

[sakabato93]

So...you're proposing that you take a test about Step 1 material before you've learned it?

Not sure if trolling or just doesn't know how to read...

 

[moisne]

Not sure if trolling or just doesn't know how to read...

Lol

 

[mcloaf]

Not sure if trolling or just doesn't know how to read...

Only half trolling. I'm not really sure how you'd test MCAT material in Step 1 format. If you guys have some insightful suggestions I'd be interested to hear them, but short of that it just sounds like vague complaining about the current MCAT format to me.

 

[JJMrK]

Only half trolling. I'm not really sure how you'd test MCAT material in Step 1 format.

You can't. Why? Because the foundation of the USMLE exam is the case presentation, which isn't relevant to undergrads in many ways. Chiefly: they haven't learned the components of a history and physical and don't have enough medical knowledge for such a format to even begin to make sense.

Otherwise, I'd argue that the MCAT is more similar to Step 1 than different: a difficult passage-based, multiple choice exam that tests knowledge you're supposed to have learned over multiple years. Instead of case presentations (which you haven't learned), passages take the form of things you have: experimental design, scientific reports, ochem/physics problems, etc. Having experienced both, I honestly don't think there's a whole lot to complain about, other than the cost.

 

[Sophocles]

If there were no correlation, the pearson correlation would be 0.0. There is a correlation. Perhaps it is not strong but it is not zero.

The pearson correlation is just the regular old correlation everyone is used to seeing. 0.328 is also pretty strong for something as diverse as test scores. It's really the p value that matters anyways. Very rarely will you see pearson correlations above that unless you're in engineering where everything is more controlled.

This is wrong. People really need to understand what p-values are and what they mean for a particular statistical test. In this case, P-value determines reliability of the correlation. Is the correlation reliable or is it completely inaccurate? It doesn't say anything about the direction or strength of the correlation. I really don't see what utility you can get from a weak correlation because predictability is not one of them. The thinking that a weak correlation is better than nothing is not a good one and can lead to many erroneous predictions. Albeit, there is some subjectivity as to what is a strong correlation and where to make the cut-offs, I highly doubt anyone would truly say 0.328 is useful. I could be wrong but I haven't read anything that contradicts this in any literature or any classes I've taken.

 

[atomi]

I've seen the opposite as well. 39 MCAT barely break 200 on step 1. These are very different tests.

Yep. I knew a 39 MCATer who failed it. This is what happens when you study just enough to pass M1-M2 and only watch the review videos to study for step 1. Getting into med school...the hard work hasn't even begun yet.

 

[atomi]

The job market being closed for pathology is an Internet myth propagated by I have no idea. There are jobs, but it is a field where jobs come via networking. Every Fellow graduating from programs I visited has jobs lined up.

It is the BEST specialty. I can assure you. I switched VERY late (after applying for another specialty) but I realized this is where I need to be.

It's a good field, but as you alluded to, fellowships are essential to be marketable.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

This is wrong. People really need to understand what p-values are and what they mean for a particular statistical test. In this case, P-value determines reliability of the correlation. Is the correlation reliable or is it completely inaccurate? It doesn't say anything about the direction or strength of the correlation. I really don't see what utility you can get from a weak correlation because predictability is not one of them. The thinking that a weak correlation is better than nothing is not a good one and can lead to many erroneous predictions. Albeit, there is some subjectivity as to what is a strong correlation and where to make the cut-offs, I highly doubt anyone would truly say 0.328 is useful. I could be wrong but I haven't read anything that contradicts this in any literature or any classes I've taken.

That's because, I like I said, it depends on the field of study. In medicine and engineering it would be weak, in psychology and social sciences it would be strong. The more you can control for your observations the higher you should expect your coefficient to be. The study that was linked to had nothing outside of MCAT/STEP scores so it's as uncontrolled as it can get. There's so much more that affects those two scores that they don't have data on.

Either way, arguing about what a strong pearson coefficient is is useless because every field/journal has a different definition. I was looking for some websites to cite for you and I found dozens that said 0.4 is moderate to somewhat strong and another dozen that said it was on the border of weak/moderate. This is why I think pearsons correlations in general are useless when you can just get some controls and do a linear regression instead.

I pointed out the p value because it is relatively very small, meaning that whether the correlation is weak or moderate or strong at the very least it's statistically significant so it deserves to be looked at.

 

[atomi]

My take on the two tests from when I was in the thick of step 1:

The MCAT requires having some minimal baseline knowledge and great test-taking skills. It's kind of like taking an addition test against a bunch of 12th graders. Who's going to win? You know addition and they know addition. It's anybody's game. The better test-takers (those that are faster and making fewer mistakes) come out on top.

Step 1 is kind of the opposite. It requires some minimal baseline test-taking ability and a far greater knowledge-base. The (majority of the) questions are very clear about what they're asking and you either know it or you don't.

This is true with the caveat that you must be able to read and process information quickly to do well on step 1. Many a step 1 low scorer ended up with that score not because he didn't know, but because he has 10 questions to go with 2 minutes left on each section. If you are a slower reader, step 1 is killer, and step 2 is even worse. The questions are not straightforward and it takes considerable cognitive effort just to be able to figure out what the question is in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[mcloaf]

This is what happens when you study just enough to pass M1-M2 and only watch the review videos to study for step 1.

Bold move.

 

[thesauce]

This is true with the caveat that you must be able to read and process information quickly to do well on step 1. Many a step 1 low scorer ended up with that score not because he didn't know, but because he has 10 questions to go with 2 minutes left on each section. If you are a slower reader, step 1 is killer, and step 2 is even worse. The questions are not straightforward and it takes considerable cognitive effort just to be able to figure out what the question is in a reasonable amount of time.

This wasn't my experience. I didn't have much trouble figuring out the question for step 1 (or steps 2 or 3 for that matter). I felt the MCAT was much trickier in that regard. Obviously our experiences are going to differ because everybody gets a different batch of questions.

 

[reedsposer22]

It's a good field, but as you alluded to, fellowships are essential to be marketable.

Yup! You are 100% right! That is ok with me! I want to be happy and I know I will be!!!

 

[moop]

Took a few practice exams before completing Orgo and Physics (just read the material out the review books) Scored a 32, 26 and 31. Well

What's this got to do with anything lmao

 

[Sophocles]

What's this got to do with anything lmao

He/she might be addressing the unpredictability factor but I can't speak for him/her

 

[moop]

He/she might be addressing the unpredictability factor but I can't speak for him/her

I'd like to think it was just a funny troll attempt 😛