Med School Admissions: More than Just Numbers (AAMC article w/ data)

Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Chops369 said:
Includes some nifty "importance" ratings, and a free fine-tooth comb!

Ok, I lied about the comb. Just read it, you ingrates. 🙂
Click to expand...


Aw man! I wanted that COMB!!


But interesting article. I like it. I am surprised that nothing went over 4 on the scale of 1-5.

I would have thought that every school would have put GPA and MCAT as 4 or 5.

But then again... I guess that's the point of the article.
 
What I found interesting (but not surprising) is that test scores decreased in importance between interview and acceptance, and your interview reports and LOR increase in importance.
 
Frazier said:
I think someone posted this last week... the discussion built up to the conclusion that it is certainly interesting to look at, but pretty close to useless [due to the statistical deviations in the data and lack of demographic consideration].

More specifically "The admissions data presented standard deviations ranging from 0.9 to 1.7, indicating variation in importance across medical schools." So when you are talking about a difference between a 3.9 vs. 3.8 importance ranking and the standard deviation is a [comparatively] whooping 0.9-1.7... The use is pretty limited.

Also, on the large scale, med school admissions really is pretty much about the numbers lol

...This becomes obvious from scrolling through MDapps and many applicants report "meh EC's/little research/limited shadowing/bla bla bla" but still have numerous invites to top 20 schools (with their astronomical GPA+MCAT-combo glaring as the obvious catalyst).

Note: again, I'm talking aggregated - as individual schools (i.e. mayo, etc.) are notorious for heavily focusing on EC's/uniqueness and will reject the homebody robot with a 40 mcat, while extend an II to the world-traveling inventor [insert other rare hobby/occupation] with a mere 30 mcat.
Click to expand...
okay_face_Highest_Rated_Post_Ever_RE_Forever_alone_problem_solved-s251x239-156794.jpg
 
Frazier said:
More specifically "The admissions data presented standard deviations ranging from 0.9 to 1.7, indicating variation in importance across medical schools." So when you are talking about a difference between a 3.9 vs. 3.8 importance ranking and the standard deviation is a [comparatively] whooping 0.9-1.7... The use is pretty limited.
Click to expand...

Standard deviations do not work that way.
 
Frazier said:
Also, on the large scale, med school admissions really is pretty much about the numbers lol
Click to expand...

Maybe interview invites are..but not admissions. But I agree..this data is pretty useless. I feel that it depends on the people that interview you, the mood they are in, your numbers, how you feel and present yourself during the day of the interview, and 100 other factors.
 
phltz said:
Standard deviations do not work that way.
Click to expand...

Given the standard deviations and sample size, which are both provided, you can calculate standard error very straightforwardly (and ergo run a t-test). In this case I can almost guarantee -- and will do the tests, if it comes to that -- that there is no statistically significant change in "importance rating" for any given selection factor as you move from II criteria to acceptance offer criteria. Going even further, it seems like none of the top 3 criteria differ from EACH OTHER at either stage, with the obvious exception of the interviewer recommendation.
 
gmcguitar4 said:
Maybe interview invites are..but not admissions. But I agree..this data is pretty useless. I feel that it depends on the people that interview you, the mood they are in, your numbers, how you feel and present yourself during the day of the interview, and 100 other factors.
Click to expand...

If you get an invite, you can be accepted. They aren't sending out interview invites for no reason. There's no "sub 30 MCAT; sub 3.4 gpa" quota to fill.
 
...you can't get accepted until you get an interview. And, the table clearly shows the number one criteria for obtaining an interview is SGPA. #2 is cum gpa. #3 is mcat.....

Obviously then, it takes numbers (aka "academic data") to obtain an interview. After that, the numbers aren't as important.


btw: where does 'research' fall in this article?

For example, approximately eight percent of applicants with UGPAs ranging from 3.80 to 4.00 and MCAT total scores ranging from 39 to 45 were rejected.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, they excluded internationals?
 
BHaus9 said:
Given the standard deviations and sample size, which are both provided, you can calculate standard error very straightforwardly (and ergo run a t-test). In this case I can almost guarantee -- and will do the tests, if it comes to that -- that there is no statistically significant change in "importance rating" for any given selection factor as you move from II criteria to acceptance offer criteria. Going even further, it seems like none of the top 3 criteria differ from EACH OTHER at either stage, with the obvious exception of the interviewer recommendation.
Click to expand...

You, unlike the person I first responded to, sound like you do have a basic clue how to interpret the stats. That said, your discussion assumes that the variation in how people rate the pre-interview importances is statistically independent from how they rate the post-interview importances. This is certainly false. In light of this, you're better of running some sort of paired test. I'd bet money (not necessarily a lot) that if we had all the data, a reasonable paired test would show a statistical significant difference for some of these variables.
 
Intradasting.
 
Big Dog said:
...you can't get accepted until you get an interview. And, the table clearly shows the number one criteria for obtaining an interview is SGPA. #2 is cum gpa. #3 is mcat.....

Obviously then, it takes numbers (aka "academic data") to obtain an interview. After that, the numbers aren't as important.


btw: where does 'research' fall in this article?



Hopefully, they excluded internationals?
Click to expand...

Science GPA is such crap! How do you compare someone who busted their balls in higher level classes to someone who took biology of fish or biology of birds or blah blah easy neuroscience class. What about the student who takes biochem, pchem, nuclei chem etc and gets B's.

Do they look at the quality of coursework on sGPA?
 
This article really said nothing.....of course after the interview, the interview score will be paramount to whether you are accepted or not. In summary, you need marks to secure an interview, and EC's to talk about DURING interviews to get into medical school. What a waste of research dollars.
 
msquaredb said:
Science GPA is such crap! How do you compare someone who busted their balls in higher level classes to someone who took biology of fish or biology of birds or blah blah easy neuroscience class. What about the student who takes biochem, pchem, nuclei chem etc and gets B's.

Do they look at the quality of coursework on sGPA?
Click to expand...

Lol if you think neuro is easy then you should be getting A's in biochem...
 
MAP2 said:
Lol if you think neuro is easy then you should be getting A's in biochem...
Click to expand...

I am sure there are variations everywhere...but I know for a fact that neuro courses at my university have A averages while the biochem department is more like B- averages.

Neuro could be intense other places, but I have testimony from my friends that it is a cakewalk where I go. I don't doubt it may be different at your university.
 
Science GPA is such crap! How do you compare someone who busted their balls in higher level classes to someone who took biology of fish or biology of birds or blah blah easy neuroscience class. What about the student who takes biochem, pchem, nuclei chem etc and gets B's.

Do they look at the quality of coursework on sGPA?
Click to expand...

....according to LizzyM. 🙂

Also, this is where a Committee Letter can play a large role. 'MSquared took the most advanced course that we offer, and the Biochem professor is known to only give out one A per decade.'
 
Last edited:
msquaredb said:
I am sure there are variations everywhere...but I know for a fact that neuro courses at my university have A averages while the biochem department is more like B- averages.

Neuro could be intense other places, but I have testimony from my friends that it is a cakewalk where I go. I don't doubt it may be different at your university.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. From your other thread your biochem course sounds insane! But yeah as the other guy said, I'm pretty sure they do look at course difficulty and class averages, but I'm not sure to what degree...
 
Big Dog said:
....according to LizzyM. 🙂

Also, this is where a Committee Letter can play a large role. 'MSquared took the most advanced course that we offer, and the Biochem professor is known to only give out one A per decade.'
Click to expand...

MAP2 said:
Fair enough. From your other thread your biochem course sounds insane! But yeah as the other guy said, I'm pretty sure they do look at course difficulty and class averages, but I'm not sure to what degree...
Click to expand...

That is good to hear. Hopefully, taking those classes pays off for the MCAT. :xf:
 
msquaredb said:
I am sure there are variations everywhere...but I know for a fact that neuro courses at my university have A averages while the biochem department is more like B- averages.

Neuro could be intense other places, but I have testimony from my friends that it is a cakewalk where I go. I don't doubt it may be different at your university.
Click to expand...

Take it from a neuro major at a top 20 with a sub-3.5 GPA, that neuro is not easy everywhere 🙂.

As to the question of how much weight is put on rigor of courses...I'd say not too much unless you're an engineer. Also, it's hard for them to tell which electives/gen. eds. are fluff classes and which are real. I've only taken one fluff class, and the rest of my electives were quite difficult, though very interesting. So, one could feasibly take one pre-req, one upper level, and a few fluff classes and look very good superficially. Also, people tend to go on RMP and pick the easiest route possible. Looking back, I would have definitely done that, though at the expense of some of my very favorite classes in undergrad. There is no reward for challenging yourself academically unless you have a good GPA to show for it (even if you didn't do that bad).

Also, how would they know class averages?? For instance, I worked my butt off in Calc, finished >7% above average, but still received a C+. There is no way for admissions members to know this, unless I intentionally bring this to their attention. So, all they see is an undesirable grade.
 
Guy Montag said:
Take it from a neuro major at a top 20 with a sub-3.5 GPA, that neuro is not easy everywhere 🙂.

As to the question of how much weight is put on rigor of courses...I'd say not too much unless you're an engineer. Also, it's hard for them to tell which electives/gen. eds. are fluff classes and which are real. I've only taken one fluff class, and the rest of my electives were quite difficult, though very interesting. So, one could feasibly take one pre-req, one upper level, and a few fluff classes and look very good superficially. Also, people tend to go on RMP and pick the easiest route possible. Looking back, I would have definitely done that, though at the expense of some of my very favorite classes in undergrad. There is no reward for challenging yourself academically unless you have a good GPA to show for it (even if you didn't do that bad).

Also, how would they know class averages?? For instance, I worked my butt off in Calc, finished >7% above average, but still received a C+. There is no way for admissions members to know this, unless I intentionally bring this to their attention. So, all they see is an undesirable grade.
Click to expand...

Haha yes fellow neuro majors!

On a more related note, we have the class averages next to our actual mark on our transcripts, and I just assumed that it was like that everywhere? No?
 
MAP2 said:
On a more related note, we have the class averages next to our actual mark on our transcripts, and I just assumed that it was like that everywhere? No?
Click to expand...

No. Generally, it's just the course name and the corresponding letter grade.

Also, this is where a Committee Letter can play a large role. 'MSquared took the most advanced course that we offer, and the Biochem professor is known to only give out one A per decade.'
Click to expand...

I think some adcoms have a general idea of some major universities' grade inflation/deflation based on the other applicants they receive from that school. However, in light of volume of applications that need to be sifted through, I don't think that much consideration goes into course difficultly. Practically speaking, a 4.0 with "easy" science classes will probably look much better than a 3.5 in "difficult" science classes on paper.
 
MAP2 said:
Haha yes fellow neuro majors!

On a more related note, we have the class averages next to our actual mark on our transcripts, and I just assumed that it was like that everywhere? No?
Click to expand...
And, in addition to what paul said, med schools aren't going to see those notations on your transcript indicating the course difficulty/class averages until you're about to matriculate (AMCAS doesn't send your actual transcripts to your schools)
 
Guy Montag said:
Take it from a neuro major at a top 20 with a sub-3.5 GPA, that neuro is not easy everywhere 🙂.

As to the question of how much weight is put on rigor of courses...I'd say not too much unless you're an engineer. Also, it's hard for them to tell which electives/gen. eds. are fluff classes and which are real. I've only taken one fluff class, and the rest of my electives were quite difficult, though very interesting. So, one could feasibly take one pre-req, one upper level, and a few fluff classes and look very good superficially. Also, people tend to go on RMP and pick the easiest route possible. Looking back, I would have definitely done that, though at the expense of some of my very favorite classes in undergrad. There is no reward for challenging yourself academically unless you have a good GPA to show for it (even if you didn't do that bad).

Also, how would they know class averages?? For instance, I worked my butt off in Calc, finished >7% above average, but still received a C+. There is no way for admissions members to know this, unless I intentionally bring this to their attention. So, all they see is an undesirable grade.
Click to expand...

What you talking bout Willis? Nothing is simpler or more interesting that the brain? Cheez Neurosurgery is so simple even a cave man can do it.
 
paul411 said:
I think some adcoms have a general idea of some major universities' grade inflation/deflation based on the other applicants they receive from that school. However, in light of volume of applications that need to be sifted through, I don't think that much consideration goes into course difficultly. Practically speaking, a 4.0 with "easy" science classes will probably look much better than a 3.5 in "difficult" science classes on paper.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't quite understand how the computer program sorts through applicants, but I bet most of them do it on major GPA, pre-req GPA and overall GPA. By having that high GPA at the expense of more rigorous coursework, you can get pre-screened to the top of the pile. It's only when a human being looks at your coursework that you might get judged more harshly.
 
notbobtrustme said:
I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't quite understand how the computer program sorts through applicants, but I bet most of them do it on major GPA, pre-req GPA and overall GPA. By having that high GPA at the expense of more rigorous coursework, you can get pre-screened to the top of the pile. It's only when a human being looks at your coursework that you might get judged more harshly.
Click to expand...

I would think having a high GPA with hard classes would mean less criticism when an actually person look at it. If you had a high GPA with fluff then you would be viewed harshly later. Is that what you mean?
 
msquaredb said:
I would think having a high GPA with hard classes would mean less criticism when an actually person look at it. If you had a high GPA with fluff then you would be viewed harshly later. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

Yes, but to be seen in the first place, you the high GPA. The tougher coursework is only helpful IF you do well in it. Doing poorly in a course will simply not be made up for by the difficulty level of that course.
 
Let me put it this way:

Numbers (mainly MCAT) ~ NIH funding

ECs ~ Soft money (like institutional grants or private funding)

Now, those of you have spent time in lab, please answer this:

What type of funding do PIs want, and what type of funding must you have to land a tenure track (or tenured job).

Numbers, for better or for worse, make the world go round.
 
Knocked Up said:
Let me put it this way:

Numbers (mainly MCAT) ~ NIH funding

ECs ~ Soft money (like institutional grants or private funding)

Now, those of you have spent time in lab, please answer this:

What type of funding do PIs want, and what type of funding must you have to land a tenure track (or tenured job).

Numbers, for better or for worse, make the world go round.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you even talking about? This analogy is just bad and has nothing to do with the fact that you were clearly wrong in your ranking of application components.
 
Knocked Up said:
Let me put it this way:

Numbers (mainly MCAT) ~ NIH funding

ECs ~ Soft money (like institutional grants or private funding)

Now, those of you have spent time in lab, please answer this:

What type of funding do PIs want, and what type of funding must you have to land a tenure track (or tenured job).

Numbers, for better or for worse, make the world go round.
Click to expand...

Umm... I do believe you are sorely mistaken. Yes, numbers are important. No one is arguing that they are not; however, schools want to graduate competent physicians who will further a good reputation in the community and amongst residency directors, which will lead to recruitment of more students as well as make training those students easier. Research shows that beyond about a 27 MCAT, further increases do very little. At that point, it makes more sense for schools to begin to consider other criteria when considering acceptances. Interviews and LORs are among the best evaluations of an applicant's more subtle and subjective qualities.
 
Last edited:
music2doc said:
Research shows taht beyond about a 27 MCAT, further increases do very little.
Click to expand...
Bull****.

I'm not agreeing with Knocked Up, but there's a reason why many people use median MCAT as a gauge of their potential to be accepted at particular school. There's a huge difference between a 27 and a 35.
 
Chops369 said:
Bull****.

I'm not agreeing with Knocked Up, but there's a reason why many people use median MCAT as a gauge of their potential to be accepted at particular school. There's a huge difference between a 27 and a 35.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe it. This is what I have heard from multiple adcom members. I do not have the time to go digging for the AAMC research showing this, but there is research that shows that students with above a 27 MCAT and above a 7 on each subtest tend to fair well in medical school (i.e., have low/insignificant attrition rates) and on the USMLE Step 1.

That said, I would agree that someone with a 35 likely knows the material better than someone with a 27. The fact remains, however, that the person with a 27 will most likely succeed in medical school. The person with the 35 may have a slightly easier time in the beginning; however, frankly, their level of success as physicians is probably not at all reflected in their MCAT scores.

Edit: The issue I am arguing is not that your MCAT does not matter if it is above a 27. What I AM arguing is that someone with above a 27 (balanced) can likely succeed in medical school. Since schools are looking for students most likely to succeed at the highest level, it makes sense that as the MCAT score rises much above the 27 threshold we see diminishing returns (i.e., the jump from a 27 to a 30 is more significant than a 31 to a 34, which is still more significant than a 35 to a 38).... In other words, as the MCAT score gets higher, other factors become more important relative to further increases in the MCAT score. This is simply a statement of the law of diminishing returns.
 
music2doc said:
Umm... I do believe your or sorely mistaken. Yes, numbers are important. No one is arguing that they are not; however, schools want to graduate competent physicians who will further a good reputation in the community and amongst residency directors, which will lead to recruitment of more students as well as make training those students easier. Research shows taht beyond about a 27 MCAT, further increases do very little. At that point, it makes more sense for schools to consider other criteria when considering acceptances. Interviews and LORs are among the best evaluations of an applicant's more subtle and subjective qualities.
Click to expand...

Please. We both know that medical school admissions is solely a numbers game. No MCAT = no acceptance. Where did you get 27 from anyway?
 
Knocked Up said:
Please. We both know that medical school admissions is solely a numbers game.
Click to expand...

It's obviously not because there are people that lie far on the left side of the standard curve that get in.
 
Knocked Up said:
Please. We both know that medical school admissions is solely a numbers game. No MCAT = no acceptance. Where did you get 27 from anyway?
Click to expand...

You have clearly taken time to learn about the the medical admissions process and are well-versed in the nuances of admissions decisions and what makes applicants successful.
 
music2doc said:
Research shows that beyond about a 27 MCAT, further increases do very little. At that point, it makes more sense for schools to begin to consider other criteria when considering acceptances. Interviews and LORs are among the best evaluations of an applicant's more subtle and subjective qualities.
Click to expand...

I think we need to see a citation for that because overwhelming anecdotal evidence as well as hard numbers (MSARs) show that the higher MCAT you have, the better your chance of acceptance are.

If we are talking about ability to do well in medical school, that's a totally different question.
 
Knocked Up said:
Please. We both know that medical school admissions is solely a numbers game. No MCAT = no acceptance. Where did you get 27 from anyway?
Click to expand...

I believe LizzyM quoted the score when discussing link between MCAT and med school attrition rates in the data and scores below 27 showed an increased risk of failing. Of course the MCAT needed for acceptance is way higher than this (barring certain state schools) but it just goes to show you how competitive the the current environment is.
 
There is a linear correlation between MCAT score and Step 1 exam meaning that students with high MCAT scores on average score higher in the Step 1 than students with lower MCAT scores.

On the other hand, a graph of passing Step 1 or successfully completing the first 2 yrs, completing med school in 4 years, by MCAT score shows an inflection point at 26/27. So, if a school wants to produce docs, they may be happy with MCATS of 27 or more. If they are looking to produce the doctors who will match into the top residencies and become leaders in academic medicine, then a school is going to be looking for the applicants with very high MCATs.

This came out of a publication (leaflet) produced by AAMC in December of '09 or '10. I don't have it in front of me right now....
 
autotroph said:
What I found interesting (but not surprising) is that test scores decreased in importance between interview and acceptance, and your interview reports and LOR increase in importance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is what a lot of premeds don't like to hear, but the numbers only open the doors, it's the interpersonal skills that let you through. At most places the interview is the most important factor once you get to that stage.
 
LizzyM said:
There is a linear correlation between MCAT score and Step 1 exam meaning that students with high MCAT scores on average score higher in the Step 1 than students with lower MCAT scores.

On the other hand, a graph of passing Step 1 or successfully completing the first 2 yrs, completing med school in 4 years, by MCAT score shows an inflection point at 26/27. So, if a school wants to produce docs, they may be happy with MCATS of 27 or more. If they are looking to produce the doctors who will match into the top residencies and become leaders in academic medicine, then a school is going to be looking for the applicants with very high MCATs.

This came out of a publication (leaflet) produced by AAMC in December of '09 or '10. I don't have it in front of me right now....
Click to expand...

Good test takers are good test takers. Doesnt really correlate with being a good resident, though, which is why IMGs with crazy high Step 1 scores still get passed over in favor of US grads with good clinical evaluations in most cases.
 
Law2Doc said:
Good test takers are good test takers. Doesnt really correlate with being a good resident, though, which is why IMGs with crazy high Step 1 scores still get passed over in favor of US grads with good clinical evaluations in most cases.
Click to expand...

Pedigree counts, no doubt about it.

BTW, the publication I'm referring to is "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection". It came out in October 2009. I don't know if it is available online -- I couldn't find it there.
 
Last edited:
"The predictive validity of three versions of the MCAT in relation to performance in medical school, residency, and licensing examinations: a longitudinal study of 36 classes of Jefferson Medical College."

Clara A. Callahan, MD, Mohammadreza Hojat, PhD, Jon Veloski, MS, James B. Erdmann, PhD, and Joseph S. Gonnella, MD

Academic Medicine: Journal Of The Association Of American Medical Colleges [Acad Med] 2010 Jun; Vol. 85 (6), pp. 980-7.

A number of studies have addressed the validity of different versions of the MCAT with mixed results. 2–17 Julian9 reported moderately high validity coefficients for the post-1991 version of the MCAT in predicting the medical licensing examinations (r 0.61 for Step 1, r 0.49 for Step 2, and r 0.49 for Step 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE]).
Click to expand...

Results
No significant improvement in validity coefficients was observed for performance in medical school or residency. Validity coefficients for all three versions of the MCAT in predicting Part I/Step 1 remained stable (in the mid- 0.40s, P .01). A systematic decline was observed in the validity coefficients of the MCAT versions in predicting Part II/ Step 2. It started at 0.47 for the pre- 1978 version, decreased to between 0.42 and 0.40 for the 1978 –1991 versions, and to 0.37 for the post-1991 version. Validity coefficients for the MCAT versions in predicting Part III/Step 3 remained near 0.30. These were generally larger for women than men.
Click to expand...

...though this doesn't address the threshold beyond which significant gains were diminished.
 
aSagacious said:
"The predictive validity of three versions of the MCAT in relation to performance in medical school, residency, and licensing examinations: a longitudinal study of 36 classes of Jefferson Medical College."

Clara A. Callahan, MD, Mohammadreza Hojat, PhD, Jon Veloski, MS, James B. Erdmann, PhD, and Joseph S. Gonnella, MD

Academic Medicine: Journal Of The Association Of American Medical Colleges [Acad Med] 2010 Jun; Vol. 85 (6), pp. 980-7.





...though this doesn't address the threshold beyond which significant gains were diminished.
Click to expand...

I would assume that after an inflection point, significant gains are diminished.

Unless, you are talking about the decreased validity for the higher Steps. I would have an explanation for this: The premed MCAT-programming were being replaced by med school Step-programming, and being successful in previous Steps lead to more success in further Steps.
 
LizzyM said:
BTW, the publication I'm referring to is "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection". It came out in October 2009. I don't know if it is available online -- I couldn't find it there.
Click to expand...

Lizzy trust me on this one. Throw out that article as quickly as possible. I am conducting a VERY convincing article that will be published in the coming months. We are kind of backed up at the moment because Nature, Science, and the NEJM are vying for our article (big war going on). We are showing that basically students in the 28-33 MCAT range have the highest correlation with high step scores. We also show that students with 34+ are statistically 90% less likely to enter academic medicine, so you don't want them either. Trust me on this data, and feel free to share it with your friends at other top 20 institutions. I think this will be a game changer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
SDN Article: Does College Ranking Matter for Medical School Admissions?
Replies
0
Views
932
Lee Burnett
L
E
SDN Article: Professionalism as an Engaged Applicant and Incoming Student: More than the “Traffic Rules”
Replies
0
Views
642
Emil Chuck, PhD
E
LindaAccepted
New AAMC Data on Medical School Applicants and Enrollment in 2024
Replies
15
Views
12K
deleted1199414
D
R
adding med school in august after aamc getting verified
Replies
5
Views
2K
wysdoc
wysdoc
E
SDN Article: Admissions Committees: The Art of the Decision
Replies
0
Views
1K
Emil Chuck, PhD
E
Top Bottom