10 times GPA plus MCAT=relief

[medhacker]

I find it hard to believe that all of you, like me, would not choose a doc who scored higher on MCATs, GPA, USMLE, etc.

I think you are missing the point, the general public in its majority don't have the foggiest idea of what a USMLE is, and even when they know what it is it is not usually a measuring standard in their mind. Point is, most people would care less about that.

Many people do care about where did the doctor do his schooling. Many people have heard of one or two medical schools and have sometimes formed their rather precarious opinions about each school they know about. In that sense I give the argument more credit since studies show that physicians who attend top medical schools as opposed to state schools commit less malpractice.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[osli]

It seems as if you are measuring a physician's effectiveness (i.e. does the patient get better) by the patient's opinion (or at least focusing on that). Of course the patient doesn't make such distinctions--they don't know their ass from their elbows, for the most part; that's the physician's job. And we know better.

And here's more of that nonsense where you think that the patient's knowledge and information is useless to you. It isn't, and I know of specific cases where a patient or relative thereof was ignored and there were serious negative consequences.

Here's more of this absolutist nonsense.

Hardly. I'm just pointing out that in addition to the need for the doctor to really know his stuff, there is a need for him/her to be able to gather crucial information from the patient; this means not being so "above" the patient that all suggestions are ignored, nor being such a prick that they wouldn't give you information or suggestions regardless of whether you'd actually listen or not.

The two (intelligence and personality) are not mutually exclusive (regardless of your opinion of me).

Of course not. And for the record, I have no idea of your intelligence. MCAT's seem to have a fairly strong correlation in the VR section, much less so in the science sections. However, you have demonstrated in your many posts here that you aren't very likely to have the personality and bedside manner found in the greatest of physicians.

 

[Kleintje]

Personally, If i was trying to choose a Dr, I would look at his reputation in his field, how successful he has been clinically, how many times has he been sued and why, what his peers say about him, has he won any awards or honors, etc....I would not use board scores to determine his qualifications to be my Dr....I don't think patients will say, oh he got a 234 on his step one so he must be a good Dr...they are going to listen to what people say about him and research how good the Dr is at what he does

 

[Kleintje]

Good to know. Interesting (and cynical) argument for mediocre test scores.

Why do you say cynical?

 

[67192]

Of course the patient doesn't make such distinctions--they don't know their ass from their elbows, for the most part; that's the physician's job. And we know better.

Hmm... well, I've been a patient before and I know my ass from my elbows. Although, maybe that's just b/c I'm pre-med and planning on becoming a physician.

I'll have to ask some non pre-med's if they are aware of the distinction sometime...

 

[big_smiles]

So I am a 76 according to that formula. . . yet no word in 3 months already!!!!

 

[einnewt]

And here's more of that nonsense where you think that the patient's knowledge and information is useless to you. It isn't, and I know of specific cases where a patient or relative thereof was ignored and there were serious negative consequences.

Hardly. I'm just pointing out that in addition to the need for the doctor to really know his stuff, there is a need for him/her to be able to gather crucial information from the patient; this means not being so "above" the patient that all suggestions are ignored, nor being such a prick that they wouldn't give you information or suggestions regardless of whether you'd actually listen or not.

Of course not. And for the record, I have no idea of your intelligence. MCAT's seem to have a fairly strong correlation in the VR section, much less so in the science sections. However, you have demonstrated in your many posts here that you aren't very likely to have the personality and bedside manner found in the greatest of physicians.

Prick. . . that's original. I should probably change my name on the message board to that and save storage bytes for everyone else, huh?

I am a chameleon. I am who I need to be when I need to be and it works. Please save your post if it is just to comment that people can see through that; people are generally dull, naive (while thinking they're not) and the fact is, they don't. Hmmm. . . could there be more than one einnewt on the board right now?

 

[Law2Doc]

Finally, I have trouble believing that given an equal bedside manner between two physicians, I find it hard to believe that all of you, like me, would not choose a doc who scored higher on MCATs, GPA, USMLE, etc. Given equal soft qualities, smarter is better and we should also avoid the trend, like one poster mentioned, to assume that these qualities (compassion and intelligence, loosely) are mutually exclusive (but rather, we assume them to be for the comparison).

You are going to go through life never having a patient ask you for your board scores -- it just doessn't happen, so its irrelevent who would choose those with higher ones - that's not a choice anyone ever gets to make. As for MCAT -- again that goes by the wayside when you get subsequent credentials that are better tailored to demonstrating whether you have the basics to be a smart doctor. There are many people who do well at the MCAT and not the boards and I would frankly say that the high MCAt scorer perhaps peaked early and is no longer "smarter" (same goes for undergrad GPA, which means nothing once you have med school grades and board scores). The correlation between the two (MCAT and boards) is not even close to perfect (there are threads on this in the allo board), you tend to see those with high verbal scores doing somewhat better on the boards statistically (verbal is somehow a better correlation than the other subjects), and frankly some people simply drop way down in tier when you take away unrelated subjects like physics, and replace them with clinical board stuff. The soft qualities are easy to measure and important to the patients. Smartness is not something accurately measured by standardized tests, and not information the patient gets anyway.

 

[Shredder]

Qualified for an interview or qualified for acceptance??

This formula gets tossed around a lot...
Eh, I'm personally much more impressed by someone with a 34/4.0 than a 38/3.6.

its all about the 3.0/40s, studs

You are going to go through life never having a patient ask you for your board scores -- it just doessn't happen, so its irrelevent who would choose those with higher ones - that's not a choice anyone ever gets to make. As for MCAT -- again that goes by the wayside when you get subsequent credentials that are better tailored to demonstrating whether you have the basics to be a smart doctor. There are many people who do well at the MCAT and not the boards and I would frankly say that the high MCAt scorer perhaps peaked early and is no longer "smarter" (same goes for undergrad GPA, which means nothing once you have med school grades and board scores). The correlation between the two (MCAT and boards) is not even close to perfect (there are threads on this in the allo board), you tend to see those with high verbal scores doing somewhat better on the boards statistically (verbal is somehow a better correlation than the other subjects), and frankly some people simply drop way down in tier when you take away unrelated subjects like physics, and replace them with clinical board stuff. The soft qualities are easy to measure and important to the patients. Smartness is not something accurately measured by standardized tests, and not information the patient gets anyway.

eh, ppl always rail against standardized tests, but if they didnt have any predictive value then they wouldnt be in business

 

[MoosePilot]

You are going to go through life never having a patient ask you for your board scores -- it just doessn't happen, so its irrelevent who would choose those with higher ones - that's not a choice anyone ever gets to make. As for MCAT -- again that goes by the wayside when you get subsequent credentials that are better tailored to demonstrating whether you have the basics to be a smart doctor. There are many people who do well at the MCAT and not the boards and I would frankly say that the high MCAt scorer perhaps peaked early and is no longer "smarter" (same goes for undergrad GPA, which means nothing once you have med school grades and board scores). The correlation between the two (MCAT and boards) is not even close to perfect (there are threads on this in the allo board), you tend to see those with high verbal scores doing somewhat better on the boards statistically (verbal is somehow a better correlation than the other subjects), and frankly some people simply drop way down in tier when you take away unrelated subjects like physics, and replace them with clinical board stuff. The soft qualities are easy to measure and important to the patients. Smartness is not something accurately measured by standardized tests, and not information the patient gets anyway.

I keep waiting for my skill at standardized tests to stop making me "smart". In second grade my IQ test got me out of class half days so I could play word games. That rocked. Then my SAT score sent me to college on Oklahoma's dime. I liked that, too. Now my MCAT score got me into med school. I don't much care whether it means I'm smart, because so far it means I got to go to college and I get to go med school. Now each level has taken a little more work, but the basic ability is still there. I don't see that changing unless I get in a car accident.

 

[argonana]

Haha, yeah, I don't think you can conclude that good test-takers are NOT smart.

I think standardized tests are a good thing--if schools cared only about one's intelligence, they could just collect our IQ scores. MCAT scores are a decent reflection of one's intelligence + motivation/study skills (both of which are pretty necessary for a successful medical career).

 

[Saluki]

Basically the rule I've heard is that the people who score well on those tests generally are intelligent, but the fact that you don't do well on those tests doesn't necessarily mean you're not.... Nevertheless, the med schools do base a lot on it, so we'll just have to deal. I think the standardized tests are a good thing, because they serve as an equalizer for those who didn't go to Columbia for undergrad...

 

[Bernito]

MCAT is an imperfect measure for an imperfect system. Are you what you are on paper? Of course not, but there is hardly a better way to compare people.

Most of us take prep classes for the MCAT, which guaranteed is an extra +2-4 points minimum on the test. Does that mean we are better than those that didn't do the prep? NO! Just had more resources available to us. Why do you think there is an emphasis for schools to recruit URMs? Because the whole damn playing field is not level. (sorry off topic)

There is also an element of randomness to the MCAT. In my prep course, toward the end, I wasn't getting the same damned score every time. Depends on what type of questions you happen to get, and how you do on the questions you narrowed down to 50-50 (which everybody has at least a few).

So go ahead and tout MCAT scores around, no one will care 1 year from now (assuming you are applying this year). Get over yourself and your number whoring, you're living too much in '82 .

(BTW 'You' = Royal you, or rhetorical you whatever, anyone fixated on a test score.)

 

[Saluki]

Most of us take prep classes for the MCAT, which guaranteed is an extra +2-4 points minimum on the test. Does that mean we are better than those that didn't do the prep? NO! Just had more resources available to us. Why do you think there is an emphasis for schools to recruit URMs? Because the whole damn playing field is not level. (sorry off topic)

Actually, I think that the people who are in the worst shape for the MCAT aren't the URMs but the poor white kids. I know at several schools in Texas and Arkansas, there are free summer study programs for URMs to prepare for the MCAT.... I don't know of something similar for those of us who share the white skin of the upper class but not their salaries...

BTW- I did take the Kaplan course, because a wealthy couple at my church helped me pay for it...

 

[Will Ferrell]

I think the standardized tests are a good thing, because they serve as an equalizer for those who didn't go to Columbia for undergrad...

Yea, praise the lord for standardized tests. Otherwise all the 3.8+s from TTTs will get in over Columbia undergrads who were up against some of the best competition in the country.

 

[Saluki]

Yea, praise the lord for standardized tests. Otherwise all the 3.8+s from TTTs will get in over Columbia undergrads who were up against some of the best competition in the country.

I was actually trying to get across the point that it allows kids who are intelligent but chose for financial reasons to go to state schools a more fair shot, but feel free to continue propagating the idea that grades from state schools are meaningless because we're all such dumb hicks that there is no competition...

 

[argonana]

Actually, I think that the people who are in the worst shape for the MCAT aren't the URMs but the poor white kids.

Yeah, I agree. Again, it's an issue of class, not race.

Is saw this question posed in another thread, but I don't remember reading an answer--is socioeconomic status taken into account when determining URM status??

 

[Bernito]

Actually, I think that the people who are in the worst shape for the MCAT aren't the URMs but the poor white kids. I know at several schools in Texas and Arkansas, there are free summer study programs for URMs to prepare for the MCAT.... I don't know of something similar for those of us who share the white skin of the upper class but not their salaries...

BTW- I did take the Kaplan course, because a wealthy couple at my church helped me pay for it...

Absolutely, affirmative action is another imperfect system. Unfortunately it is an overcorrection for a problem that would not correct itself.

But let me tell you, the URM recruitment is not really the issue for poor people. Again we are talking resources. How can you compete when you have to work part time in school to pay for it? etc. etc.

 

[Saluki]

Yeah, I agree. Again, it's an issue of class, not race.

Is saw this question posed in another thread, but I don't remember reading an answer--is socioeconomic status taken into account when determining URM status??

No, but you can apply as disadvantaged. I chose not to, though, because I don't think it actually helps that much, but others might feel differently...

 

[Will Ferrell]

I was actually thinking the opposite, but feel free to continue propagating the idea that grades from state schools are meaningless because we're all such dumb hicks that there is no competition...

No, some of the best students I know went to state schools. I'm just saying that the average Ivy League applicant needs a good MCAT score in order to get in. Otherwise their 3.3 GPA would hold them back despite all the extra competition they faced.

 

[Indryd]

No, some of the best students I know went to state schools. I'm just saying that the average Ivy League applicant needs a good MCAT score in order to get in. Otherwise their 3.3 GPA would hold them back despite all the extra competition they faced.

And the average stater with a 3.3 doesn't need a good MCAT to get in?

 

[Will Ferrell]

And the average stater with a 3.3 doesn't need a good MCAT to get in?

OK, I'll quit before this turns into another "grade inflation"/state school vs. competitive school thread.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

To be more precise about it, I would be tickled pink with a doctor who does not naturally score a 40, but is studious and has a profound sense of responsibility, to one who can but skates. I don't think the level of treatment (and this is just a feeling) is much different between someone with 35 or a 30. Where my own health is concerned, when presented with a zebra, I want a doctor who doesn't just see horses, and pure intellect can make that difference (given diligence is assumed). Mostly, however, I prefer that someone capable of getting a 3.7 of a 35 earn those scores (if circumstances permit) b/c it may indicate a broader dedication to excellence/achieving their best for patients (though to be honest, I could not include myself in that group at times).

to me, this would just indicate a doctor who does not know how to adequately allocate her time. focusing on something as pointless to the practice of medicine as scoring a 40 instead of a 35 on the mcat shows that this said doctor is motivated primarily by ego. sure, it's good to do your best, and you'll have to learn as an adult and as a professional that you have to intelligently select where to apply the most effort. i don't want a doctor who's going to waste her time on pointless perfectism or who needs to score a 40 to feel adequate or competent.

 

[kaffy]

No, some of the best students I know went to state schools. I'm just saying that the average Ivy League applicant needs a good MCAT score in order to get in. Otherwise their 3.3 GPA would hold them back despite all the extra competition they faced.

I thought it was the private schools (e.g. Harvard) that were notorious for their grade inflation. At some state schools, especially in engineering, it seems as if they try to cut as many people in the first few years as possible by making the classes quite hard to make an "A" in. So an "A" is definitely an "A". But this may be legend...

 

[kaffy]

sorry I had to bring it up...I am actually not even sure this is true

 

[MoosePilot]

to me, this would just indicate a doctor who does not know how to adequately allocate her time. focusing on something as pointless to the practice of medicine as scoring a 40 instead of a 35 on the mcat shows that this said doctor is motivated primarily by ego. sure, it's good to do your best, and you'll have to learn as an adult and as a professional that you have to intelligently select where to apply the most effort. i don't want a doctor who's going to waste her time on pointless perfectism or who needs to score a 40 to feel adequate or competent.

That might be a point if she got a 35 and then retook for the 40, but you can't perfectly predict what you'll get, especially in the 35+ category. The differences (from what I understand) are rather small. So the level of effort she put in to make a 35 might have gotten her a 40 because the test focused on her best topics and she guessed well.

 

[Bernito]

I thought it was the private schools (e.g. Harvard) that were notorious for their grade inflation. At some state schools, especially in engineering, it seems as if they try to cut as many people in the first few years as possible by making the classes quite hard to make an "A" in. So an "A" is definitely an "A". But this may be legend...

There is truth to this, but it goes back to how do you compare people. How do you compare grades from people with different degrees from different schools? That is why the MCAT is a necessary "evil."

 

[Indryd]

OK, I'll quit before this turns into another "grade inflation"/state school vs. competitive school thread.

Exxxxxxxcellent!