Any One else finding MCAT Rediculously hard And Impossible???

[Corpus Callosum]

I have never worked as hard in my life like this before, and never felt that stupid about myself, for me months are not breaking it, and I have 2 science bachelors, 1 science masters, aviation associate, I am just losing confidence in my school abilities, and I am a good student 4.0 graduate gpa, 3.5 undergraduate
sometimes I just feel you have to have a phd in every single area on the mcat to really bomb the test, to be honest sometimes even after reading the explanation of the question, I still would not understand, if fact I get more confused and the next time I answer things that I previously knew, wrong, I don't know, I am just so stunned at this test and what people do to do well????
I really do not believe in the logic and fairness of this test the least, and the first thing I am planning to do if I ever make it up there is to protest and change this stupid test, maybe get rid of it?
you guys with me on that?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tkim]

Although I may disagree with you on point 2) because again I do not believe the MCAT measures how much you know or how inteligent you are, but how fast you think, retain passage information (in other words memorize it within minutes), and be able to spit it out when questioned about the details

Hmmm, sounds like what people do in med school - study large volumes of information, retain it, then regurgitate it for their shelfs, steps, and attendings.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Hmmm, sounds like what people do in med school - study large volumes of information, retain it, then regurgitate it for their shelfs, steps, and attendings.

Sounds discouraging, but being a resident, has to be true. Good luck to you.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I get the sense a certain someone has failed a course at caltech and now has the urge to put others down?
Seriously, I'm not impressed much of grades from uber competitive schools.
Because they are so hard to get admitted to, they must maintain their reputation. It is practically impossible to get less than C's in ivy's.

As someone who has taken courses in both a state school and a top-5 school, I can tell you the level of difficulty has more to do with the professor than with the insititution.

Your sense, much like your comments, are way off. The level of difficulty has to do with the talent level of your classmates and not much else. You seem to be a strong advocate of MCAT being a good indicator of intelligence. In that case, let me point out that MIT has an MCAT AVERAGE of 35. Does your state school have such a high MCAT average? I rest my case. What did you take at a top 5 school? Underwater basket weaving? If you think a top 5 school and a state school are comparable in terms of difficulty, you are in serious denial.

 

[RoadRunner17]

Your sense, much like your comments, are way off. The level of difficulty has to do with the talent level of your classmates and not much else. You seem to be a strong advocate of MCAT being a good indicator of intelligence. In that case, let me point out that MIT has an MCAT AVERAGE of 35. Does your state school have such a high MCAT average? I rest my case. What did you take at a top 5 school? Underwater basket weaving? If you think a top 5 school and a state school are comparable in terms of difficulty, you are in serious denial.

They seem to only have experience in classes where your performance isn't curved against that of other students. Which sounds pretty nice. Either that, or they are in denial and there's no point in posting in this thread anymore.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

Could it be that top tier schools get high MCAT scores because they screen for students who have already proven they are good at standardized exams? To get into a top tier school takes a great SAT score, so someone who is good at standardized exams is more likely to go to a top end school and someone who is poor at standardized tests is likely to end up at a lower end school. A top tier school better get better MCAT scores, based on superior test-taking skills in their students. If you took the average student at MIT and made them blindly take the MCAT and compared it to a school like San Diego State or UC Davis, I'm sure you'd see a higher score for MIT. Is that because they know their information better or because they know how to take a standardized exam?

Given that a 28 and 34 differ by only fifteen questions or so, a calm test-taker with proven skills on a multiple-choice exam should be able to get fifteen more questions right just based on their ability to avoid careless mistakes. The MCAT, like so many standardized exams, tells you how good you are at standardized exams. I tend to think the MCAT is the best-written standardized exam of the eleven different exams I've taken in my life (I'm sort of social geek that likes to take standardized exams). I think it truly tests ones logic and understanding, but it still has an inherent test-takers bias.

Not to pick a fight, but you can't simultaneously say the MCAT is pointless and then use it as a yardstick to say students at one school are better than another.

And for the record, I am in the camp that says an A at one school does not equal an A at another, BUT it does not correlate to rankings as much as some would like to believe. Sure, schools like Hopkins and MIT have high standards and it holds true. But take Stanford as a great example. It's a very good school with amazing teachers and amazing students, but it has a reputation of inflating grades. A Stanford GPA is not given the same respect as other schools.

The bottom line is that there are so many variables and inconsistencies that it's just not worth scrutinizing the validity of the exam. You have to take it for entrance, so you might as well accept it with all its lovable imperfections.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Could it be that top tier schools get high MCAT scores because they screen for students who have already proven they are good at standardized exams? To get into a top tier school takes a great SAT score, so someone who is good at standardized exams is more likely to go to a top end school and someone who is poor at standardized tests is likely to end up at a lower end school. A top tier school better get better MCAT scores, based on superior test-taking skills in their students. If you took the average student at MIT and made them blindly take the MCAT and compared it to a school like San Diego State or UC Davis, I'm sure you'd see a higher score for MIT. Is that because they know their information better or because they know how to take a standardized exam?

Given that a 28 and 34 differ by only fifteen questions or so, a calm test-taker with proven skills on a multiple-choice exam should be able to get fifteen more questions right just based on their ability to avoid careless mistakes. The MCAT, like so many standardized exams, tells you how good you are at standardized exams. I tend to think the MCAT is the best-written standardized exam of the eleven different exams I've taken in my life (I'm sort of social geek that likes to take standardized exams). I think it truly tests ones logic and understanding, but it still has an inherent test-takers bias.

Not to pick a fight, but you can't simultaneously say the MCAT is pointless and then use it as a yardstick to say students at one school are better than another.

And for the record, I am in the camp that says an A at one school does not equal an A at another, BUT it does not correlate to rankings as much as some would like to believe. Sure, schools like Hopkins and MIT have high standards and it holds true. But take Stanford as a great example. It's a very good school with amazing teachers and amazing students, but it has a reputation of inflating grades. A Stanford GPA is not given the same respect as other schools.

The bottom line is that there are so many variables and inconsistencies that it's just not worth scrutinizing the validity of the exam. You have to take it for entrance, so you might as well accept it with all its lovable imperfections.

PreMD86 thinks that MCAT is a good measure of intelligence (I don't). He also thinks that it is equally easy to get As at top schools and state schools. So while I think that MCAT doesn't measure intelligence all that well, I felt compelled to get the point across in terms he/she can relate to.

I think grade inflation at top schools is blown out of proportion. It's typical to give out 30% As at Stanford, but this means that 70% of the class will not get As. When you are competing with people ranked #1 in their countries (some of which are very big countries), it's nearly impossible to get As. So I don't really buy that whole grade inflation argument. A school like UCLA doesn't really have the same student body, so even in a class where only 10% of As are awarded, getting an A at UCLA is not hard compared to schools like Stanford.

I also think that econ majors (just to pick an example) at Stanford have it a lot easier than any major in the engineering department, so grade inflation would definitely not apply to Stanford's school of engineering.

The vast majority of people who can get a 3.9+ GPA at a school like UCLA would be lucky to walk away with a 3.5 at Harvard and Stanford. Even if ad coms evaluate grades with some perceived grade inflation in mind, this doesn't mean their practice is correct. In other words, just because someone practices something, doesn't mean it's the right or best way to do it. After all, adcoms don't cut any slack to the engineering majors, and it's very well known that it's significantly harder to earn high grades in engineering than in any other major, even at state schools.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

PreMD86 thinks that MCAT is a good measure of intelligence (I don't). He also thinks that it is equally easy to get As at top schools and state schools. So while I think that MCAT doesn't measure intelligence all that well, I felt compelled to get the point across in terms he can relate to.

I think the MCAT is a great test to determine how well you can take a test. It doesn't necessarily measure intelligence, knowledge, or reasoning to a great extent, but to do well requires all three. It's not perfect, but it does weed the applicant pool to some reliability.

I think grade inflation at top schools is blown out of proportion. It's typical to give out 30% As at Stanford, but this means that 70% of the class will not get As. When you are competiting with people ranked #1 in their countries (some of which are very big countries), it's nearly impossible to get As. So I don't really buy that whole grade inflation argument. A school like UCLA doesn't really have the same student body, so even in a class where only 10% of As are awarded, getting an A at UCLA is not hard compared to schools like Stanford.

You seem to believe rankings matter, but grade inflation does not. I personally think both are factors, but not as significant as others feel they are. Rankings are misleading (higher ranking does not always mean better education) and grade inflation can never balance out a student body (not all students at top schools are geniuses and not all students at lowly public schools are *****s). Grade inflation is as viable a consideration as rankings, but neither are the end all be all. I chose to use Stanford, because it is the typical example used by graduate schools in referring to grade inflation. I would beg to differ about getting an A at UCLA not equating to an A at Stanford, but I can't argue that comparison from a personal experience, only from what I've observed in our students over the years. I would say that Stanford has better teachers, but the students don't differ as much as you claim. And there are some of us who had to choose a lowly public school over a prestigious private school for cost purposes.

I also think that econ majors (just to pick an example) at Stanford have it a lot easier than any major in the engineering department, so grade inflation would definitely not apply to the school of engineering.

I would have to say that based on GPA statistics, engineers have it hard everywhere. I think we all respect math majors and engineering majors as the true geniuses of the school.

The vast majority of people who can get a 3.9+ GPA at a school like UCLA would be lucky to walk away with a 3.5 at Harvard and Stanford. Even if ad coms evaluate grades with grade inflation in mind, doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it, in other words, just because someone practices something, doesn't mean it's the right or best way to do it. After all, adcoms don't cut any slack to the engineering majors, and it's very well known that it's significantly harder to earn high grades in engineering than in any other major, even at state schools.

So are you saying that UCLA is a lowly state school that produces inferior students? A 3.9 versus 3.5 is a pretty large gap, especially with the grade inflation at Stanford. Again, I can only go with what I'ver seen in our students over the years, but I'd say that a 3.9 at UCLA could probably be a 3.99 at Stanford. I think a 3.8 at Stanford would roughly equate to a 3.6 at UCLA.

This is an argument that we can't really reach a resolve with, so I'll just say that we disagree. And that's the beauty of a place like this.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

PreMD86 thinks that MCAT is a good measure of intelligence (I don't). He also thinks that it is equally easy to get As at top schools and state schools. So while I think that MCAT doesn't measure intelligence all that well, I felt compelled to get the point across in terms he/she can relate to.

I think grade inflation at top schools is blown out of proportion. It's typical to give out 30% As at Stanford, but this means that 70% of the class will not get As. When you are competing with people ranked #1 in their countries (some of which are very big countries), it's nearly impossible to get As. So I don't really buy that whole grade inflation argument. A school like UCLA doesn't really have the same student body, so even in a class where only 10% of As are awarded, getting an A at UCLA is not hard compared to schools like Stanford.

I also think that econ majors (just to pick an example) at Stanford have it a lot easier than any major in the engineering department, so grade inflation would definitely not apply to Stanford's school of engineering.

The vast majority of people who can get a 3.9+ GPA at a school like UCLA would be lucky to walk away with a 3.5 at Harvard and Stanford. Even if ad coms evaluate grades with some perceived grade inflation in mind, this doesn't mean their practice is correct. In other words, just because someone practices something, doesn't mean it's the right or best way to do it. After all, adcoms don't cut any slack to the engineering majors, and it's very well known that it's significantly harder to earn high grades in engineering than in any other major, even at state schools.

Exactly true, that I tend to agree with.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

They seem to only have experience in classes where your performance isn't curved against that of other students. Which sounds pretty nice. Either that, or they are in denial and there's no point in posting in this thread anymore.

Like others have stated, engineering classes are curved the steepest, and you are not given any slack. (at least the ones I have been in)
When you disagree with one opinion or another, you just relate it to denial, and waste of time, just be patient pal,you have been helpful at times, and defensive at others,stay cool, at the end of the day who cares, we will all make it, hopefully

 

[BrokenGlass]

I think the MCAT is a great test to determine how well you can take a test. It doesn't necessarily measure intelligence, knowledge, or reasoning to a great extent, but to do well requires all three. It's not perfect, but it does weed the applicant pool to some reliability.



You seem to believe rankings matter, but grade inflation does not. I personally think both are factors, but not as significant as others feel they are. Rankings are misleading (higher ranking does not always mean better education) and grade inflation can never balance out a student body (not all students at top schools are geniuses and not all students at lowly public schools are *****s). Grade inflation is as viable a consideration as rankings, but neither are the end all be all. I chose to use Stanford, because it is the typical example used by graduate schools in referring to grade inflation. I would beg to differ about getting an A at UCLA not equating to an A at Stanford, but I can't argue that comparison from a personal experience, only from what I've observed in our students over the years. I would say that Stanford has better teachers, but the students don't differ as much as you claim. And there are some of us who had to choose a lowly public school over a prestigious private school for cost purposes.



I would have to say that based on GPA statistics, engineers have it hard everywhere. I think we all respect math majors and engineering majors as the true geniuses of the school.



So are you saying that UCLA is a lowly state school that produces inferior students? A 3.9 versus 3.5 is a pretty large gap, especially with the grade inflation at Stanford. Again, I can only go with what I'ver seen in our students over the years, but I'd say that a 3.9 at UCLA could probably be a 3.99 at Stanford. I think a 3.8 at Stanford would roughly equate to a 3.6 at UCLA.

This is an argument that we can't really reach a resolve with, so I'll just say that we disagree. And that's the beauty of a place like this.

There is no grade inflation simply because it's harder to get an A at Stanford than at UCLA. I am not addressing the quality of education because that is a very subjective factor. I am addressing the relative difficulty of getting the same GPA at both schools, and while UCLA is a fine school, it's not even in the same leagues as Stanford. I would say that Stanford doesn't have better teachers as compared to UCLA, it has better students. The cost issue is no longer a factor because today average indebtedness at Stanford is comparable to average indebtedness at UCLA due to generous financial aid packages.

I am not saying that UCLA is a lowly state school, far from it. UCLA is a fine school. I choose UCLA as an example because the gap between a top 10 school (e.g. Stanford) and say Cal State LA is even bigger than the gap between a top 10 school and UCLA, and gap between UCLA and Stanford is huge.

I was actually being generous when I said that a 3.9 at UCLA would be 3.5 at Stanford. The reality is that a 3.9 at UCLA is probalby more like a 3.3 at Stanford since it takes more effort to get B at Stanford than an A at UCLA. I know several people who had 3.9+ at UCLA undergard and they were absolutely shocked when they began their graduate studies at Stanford, it was that much more difficult. None of these people got anywhere near 3.9 at Stanford.

I am sure there are some ad coms at some schools who would value a 3.9 from UCLA more than a 3.9 from Stanford. I am equally sure that the reverse is also true. In fact, I would argue that there are more people from Stanford at top med schools than there are people from UCLA, even though UCLA produces many more premeds a year than Stanford. If a 3.9 from Stanford was frowned upon vis a vis a 3.9 from UCLA, the reverse would have been true.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

I think the MCAT is a great test to determine how well you can take a test. It doesn't necessarily measure intelligence, knowledge, or reasoning to a great extent, but to do well requires all three. It's not perfect, but it does weed the applicant pool to some reliability.



You seem to believe rankings matter, but grade inflation does not. I personally think both are factors, but not as significant as others feel they are. Rankings are misleading (higher ranking does not always mean better education) and grade inflation can never balance out a student body (not all students at top schools are geniuses and not all students at lowly public schools are *****s). Grade inflation is as viable a consideration as rankings, but neither are the end all be all. I chose to use Stanford, because it is the typical example used by graduate schools in referring to grade inflation. I would beg to differ about getting an A at UCLA not equating to an A at Stanford, but I can't argue that comparison from a personal experience, only from what I've observed in our students over the years. I would say that Stanford has better teachers, but the students don't differ as much as you claim. And there are some of us who had to choose a lowly public school over a prestigious private school for cost purposes.



I would have to say that based on GPA statistics, engineers have it hard everywhere. I think we all respect math majors and engineering majors as the true geniuses of the school.



So are you saying that UCLA is a lowly state school that produces inferior students? A 3.9 versus 3.5 is a pretty large gap, especially with the grade inflation at Stanford. Again, I can only go with what I'ver seen in our students over the years, but I'd say that a 3.9 at UCLA could probably be a 3.99 at Stanford. I think a 3.8 at Stanford would roughly equate to a 3.6 at UCLA.

This is an argument that we can't really reach a resolve with, so I'll just say that we disagree. And that's the beauty of a place like this.

all, maybe, except you

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

Before addressing anything, I must say that I strongly admire your insertion of opinions and then treating them like facts.

• 
  1. The average indebtedness at Stanford is comparable to UCLA.
  2. Stanford is a top 10 university.
  3. There is an academic gap between UCLA and Stanford, and it's huge.
  4. That UCLA undergraduates who went on to attend graduate school at Stanford were shocked by the difficulty of graduate school, concluding that their undergad classes at UCLA were less difficult than Stanford graduate classes.
  5. There are more people from Stanford at top med schools than there are people from UCLA.
  6. You know several 3.9+ UCLA graduates who went to Stanford for graduate school and further, you know their Stanford GPAs as well. I'm not sure how many UCLA students graduate each year in the sciences with a 3.9+, but I'm fairly sure that when you consider this group and how many went to Stanford AND told you their GPAs, the number is not really one that be accurately described by the word "several".

Everyone of these are unsubstantiated opinions that you are using to support your argument. I'm sure you strongly want Stanford to be a better school than UCLA, and perhaps it is, but where is the tangible proof as opposed to your speculations?

There is no grade inflation simply because it's harder to get an A at Stanford than at UCLA. I am not addressing the quality of education because that is a very subjective factor. I am addressing the relative difficulty of getting the same GPA at both schools, and while UCLA is a fine school, it's not even in the same leagues as Stanford. I would say that Stanford doesn't have better teachers as compared to UCLA, it has better students. The cost issue is no longer a factor because today average indebtedness at Stanford is comparable to average indebtedness at UCLA due to generous financial aid packages.

You speak of UCLA as if it's a remedial JC. I have dealt with students from both universities to a pretty good extent, and as far as premeds go, a 3.9 at UCLA has been as impressive as a 3.9 from Stanford. I think you are putting Stanford on a much higher pedestal than it deserves. We ran a course there for about a year, and the range of students seemed no different than UCLA or Cal. There MCAT scores all seemed the same.

The Stanford students, at the time, had the freedom to drop classes at the very last minute to avoid the chance of a low grade damaging their GPA. Based on my observations, you have severely underestimated UCLA students. Different years have different group abilities, so perhaps you are familiar with a down year group, but over time, I have been very impressed with UCLA students. All I know is that they get some great MCAT scores.

I am not saying that UCLA is a lowly state school, far from it. UCLA is a fine school. I choose UCLA as an example because the gap between a top 10 school (e.g. Stanford) and say Cal State LA is even bigger than the gap between a top 10 school and UCLA, and gap between UCLA and Stanford is huge.

You are saying UCLA is a lowly state school. You are also being generous putting Stanford in a top 10 spot. And I'm telling you that from my experience with about 150 Stanford students and perhaps 7500 UCLA students, there is no gap. Stanford students are just as good as their less-indebted public school cohorts to the south. Their average MCAT scores are similar and their inherent intelligence seemed pretty comparable. The only major difference was that Stanford students could drop their classes at the last minute to salvage their GPAs.

I was actually being generous when I said that a 3.9 at UCLA would be 3.5 at Stanford. The reality is that a 3.9 at UCLA is probalby more like a 3.3 at Stanford since it takes more effort to get B at Stanford than an A at UCLA. I know several people who had 3.9+ at UCLA undergard and they were absolutely shocked when they began their graduate studies at Stanford, it was that much more difficult. None of these people got anywhere near 3.9 at Stanford.

I'm not sure which classes you are talking about, but I suspect that getting an A in a class like Movie Theory at UCLA is probably easier than getting a B in an upper division engineering class at Stanford, so I can't refute your comment. But when comparing the curriculum of a premed directly between the two schools, a UCLA A- student would be at the same place at Stanford.

In fact, I just took a look at comparable organic chemistry and physics postings from equivalent courses at the two schools, and it looks like the Stanford classes had much easier midterms in both cases. I'm not saying Stanford is a trade school by any means, but they are not that different than UCLA.

I am sure there are some ad coms at some schools who would value a 3.9 from UCLA more than a 3.9 from Stanford. I am equally sure that the reverse is also true. In fact, I would argue that there are more people from Stanford at top med schools than there are people from UCLA, even though UCLA produces many more premeds a year than Stanford. If a 3.9 from Stanford was frowned upon vis a vis a 3.9 from UCLA, the reverse would have been true.

If a 3.9 UCLA = 3.3 Stanford as you say, then why would adcom value a UCLA 3.9 more than a Stanford 3.9? If what you say is readily obvious, then wouldn't that seem odd? And once again you support your position with a supposition that Stanford might have more students in top medical schools and end with a declaration of truth that UCLA has fewer. There's nothing like using your own unsupported beliefs to support your beliefs. I'd like to apply that same tactic. I think that the reverse is true, where UCLA undergrads fill top medical school classes more so than Stanford students. Take the medical school classes from the top twenty medical schools (sans Stanford and UCLA, because they likely favor their own) and you will likely see about a three-to-one ratio of UCLA students to Stanford students. In fact, I'd like to say it's seven-to-one. No wait, I'm settling on a final ratio of 13.7 : 1.

And lastly, and this I can speak of without hearsay, the Stanford financial aid package in the late 80s left an undergraduate in more debt than a Regent's scholarship to a UC campus. There were definitely people who choose a UC school over Stanford, despite being accepted to both, for purely financial reasons. I'm willing to bet it's the same thing today, when comparing the absolute top of the crop.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

all, maybe, except you

What do you think it means when someone calls you a troll on line? Multiple people have suspected it, including me. Is it a bad thing? Is it a good thing? You seem to have taken great offense to such an accusation, so I'm wondering what exactly you think those of us expressing such an opinion meant.

For me at least, by suspecting that you are a troll, I'm not saying anything about your intelligence, motivation in life, dedication to the preservation of frog sanctuaries, or anything else you seem to have taken offense with. In fact, I would say that you are quite intelligent, have a great motivation to succeed academically (even if you are on here nearly all waking hours), and you might even like frogs (not really sure about that).

All I know for sure is that I think you are the kid who likes to kick the beehive.

 

[NRAI2001]

all, maybe, except you

Why hasnt this thread been closed yet. If CC isnt a troll, i hope his annoying asz gets into med school..bc if he thinks the mcat is such an issue he ll schit his pants by the end of the first week of school.

No one gives a fuk about how you feel about the mcat bc you re a no body and will continue to be one even if you get into a top 10 med school. No one in the med field gives a dam about anything that doesnt directly pertain to them including mcat, undergrad prestige, majors, med school, prestige of school...etc besides little premed schitters like you.

GOD...now you made me pop a blood vessel in my eye.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

What do you think it means when someone calls you a troll on line? Multiple people have suspected it, including me. Is it a bad thing? Is it a good thing? You seem to have taken great offense to such an accusation, so I'm wondering what exactly you think those of us expressing such an opinion meant.

For me at least, by suspecting that you are a troll, I'm not saying anything about your intelligence, motivation in life, dedication to the preservation of frog sanctuaries, or anything else you seem to have taken offense with. In fact, I would say that you are quite intelligent, have a great motivation to succeed academically (even if you are on here nearly all waking hours), and you might even like frogs (not really sure about that).

All I know for sure is that I think you are the kid who likes to kick the beehive.

It means some one who does not make any sense, cries and wines indefinitely, and makes up stories and statistics.
I was offended because I felt that my integrity was shattered and my credibility was being compromised by those unsubstantiated alligations, and random verdicts that possess neither the basis nor the foundation.
This is a public site, every thing you state may influence how the rest of the readers will portray the subject of discussion.
I would appreciate a multi-way conversation between all, based on ethical deferential dialogue., representative of academic standards and devoid of resentment and coarseness.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

What do you think it means when someone calls you a troll on line? Multiple people have suspected it, including me. Is it a bad thing? Is it a good thing? You seem to have taken great offense to such an accusation, so I'm wondering what exactly you think those of us expressing such an opinion meant.

For me at least, by suspecting that you are a troll, I'm not saying anything about your intelligence, motivation in life, dedication to the preservation of frog sanctuaries, or anything else you seem to have taken offense with. In fact, I would say that you are quite intelligent, have a great motivation to succeed academically (even if you are on here nearly all waking hours), and you might even like frogs (not really sure about that).

All I know for sure is that I think you are the kid who likes to kick the beehive.

Why hasnt this thread been closed yet. If CC isnt a troll, i hope his annoying asz gets into med school..bc if he thinks the mcat is such an issue he ll schit his pants by the end of the first week of school.

No one gives a fuk about how you feel about the mcat bc you re a no body and will continue to be one even if you get into a top 10 med school. No one in the med field gives a dam about anything that doesnt directly pertain to them including mcat, undergrad prestige, majors, med school, prestige of school...etc besides little premed schitters like you.

GOD...now you made me pop a blood vessel in my eye.

Which eye, right or left?
It may be wise to conduct yourself with the appropriate decorum suitable for a prospective DOCTOR.

 

[RoadRunner17]

No offense CC, but I'm not surprised by people thinking you're a troll. You seem like a genuinely good guy, but you also seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. Is it for attention? Because it isn't accomplishing anything else as you can see in this thread. Although, you are getting plenty of attention and I am sure you enjoy that to some extent.

When people disagree, more often than not, you throw up some hearsay. Fair enough, its a public internet forum and no rules are being broken. But there's no rule that says you are the final arbiter of forum posting either. If you want what you call "a multi-way conversation between all, based on ethical deferential dialogue., representative of academic standards and devoid of resentment and coarseness," you are in the wrong place. Go to a pre-med meeting or a guest lecture on campus, something that meets your high standards. A bunch of anonymous posters sure aren't going to care much for your standards.

"Some one who does not make any sense, cries and wines indefinitely, and makes up stories and statistics. I was offended because I felt that my integrity was shattered and my credibility was being compromised by those unsubstantiated alligations, and random verdicts that possess neither the basis nor the foundation. This is a public site, every thing you state may influence how the rest of the readers will portray the subject of discussion."

This is a public site where people post under aliases. Think about whether you should care what other people think on an online forum with anonymous posting. That being said, the above quote is pretty comical and I would deem it sarcasm if not for the fact that you're not exactly blameless either.. in fact, you could almost be talking about yourself. I hope that didn't shatter your integrity.

You also post about how unfair the MCAT is, but you spend so much of your time on here debating that. Instead of using your study breaks to post on SDN, get out of the house and do something. Maybe it'll get your mind off the MCAT, which seems like something we all could use.

To CC, I say: FLAME ON.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

No offense CC, but I'm not surprised by people thinking you're a troll. You seem like a genuinely good guy, but you also seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. Is it for attention? Because it isn't accomplishing anything else as you can see in this thread. Although, you are getting plenty of attention and I am sure you enjoy that to some extent.

When people disagree, more often than not, you throw up some hearsay. Fair enough, its a public internet forum and no rules are being broken. But there's no rule that says you are the final arbiter of forum posting either. If you want what you call "a multi-way conversation between all, based on ethical deferential dialogue., representative of academic standards and devoid of resentment and coarseness," you are in the wrong place. Go to a pre-med meeting or a guest lecture on campus, something that meets your high standards. A bunch of anonymous posters sure aren't going to care much for your standards.



This is a public site where people post under aliases. Think about whether you should care what other people think on an online forum with anonymous posting. That being said, the above quote is pretty comical and I would deem it sarcasm if not for the fact that you're not exactly blameless either.. in fact, you could almost be talking about yourself. I hope that didn't shatter your integrity.

You also post about how unfair the MCAT is, but you spend so much of your time on here debating that. Instead of using your study breaks to post on SDN, get out of the house and do something. Maybe it'll get your mind off the MCAT, which seems like something we all could use.

To CC, I say: FLAME ON.

hahaha, I like that last one. The problem is that after I flame, I flame lots of people too and they get pretty annoyed, so from now on I will relax, does not seem like there is some one listening on the other side.
As for the attention, that is a nonono, RoadRunner, Look at my profile, do I really look the type of a guy who is looking for attention, You know something, those days, I try to stay away from attention actually, I have friends I have not spoke to for months hell my girlfriend I have not seen in 5 months (not that it matters she is in california anyways).
I will tell you briefly what it is however.
I thought that people would rise and protest what is unjust, but I seem to be one of the very few tigers in the desert.
As for writing here, versus going elsewhere, I am practicing my writing skills for the MCAT, don't you think this is a perfect setting for that, as no rules exist to oblige, as you said?

 

[Cytotoxic]

As for writing here, versus going elsewhere, I am practicing my writing skills for the MCAT, don't you think this is a perfect setting for that, as no rules exist to oblige, as you said?

Keep practicing. And try to form a convincing/coherent argument here and there, I hear those evil MCAT overlords love that.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Keep practicing. And try to form a convincing/coherent argument here and there, I hear those evil MCAT overlords love that.

We'll do.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Before addressing anything, I must say that I strongly admire your insertion of opinions and then treating them like facts.

• 1. The average indebtedness at Stanford is comparable to UCLA.
  2. Stanford is a top 10 university.
  3. There is an academic gap between UCLA and Stanford, and it's huge.
  4. That UCLA undergraduates who went on to attend graduate school at Stanford were shocked by the difficulty of graduate school, concluding that their undergad classes at UCLA were less difficult than Stanford graduate classes.
  5. There are more people from Stanford at top med schools than there are people from UCLA.
  6. You know several 3.9+ UCLA graduates who went to Stanford for graduate school and further, you know their Stanford GPAs as well. I'm not sure how many UCLA students graduate each year in the sciences with a 3.9+, but I'm fairly sure that when you consider this group and how many went to Stanford AND told you their GPAs, the number is not really one that be accurately described by the word "several".

Everyone of these are unsubstantiated opinions that you are using to support your argument. I'm sure you strongly want Stanford to be a better school than UCLA, and perhaps it is, but where is the tangible proof as opposed to your speculations?



You speak of UCLA as if it's a remedial JC. I have dealt with students from both universities to a pretty good extent, and as far as premeds go, a 3.9 at UCLA has been as impressive as a 3.9 from Stanford. I think you are putting Stanford on a much higher pedestal than it deserves. We ran a course there for about a year, and the range of students seemed no different than UCLA or Cal. There MCAT scores all seemed the same.

The Stanford students, at the time, had the freedom to drop classes at the very last minute to avoid the chance of a low grade damaging their GPA. Based on my observations, you have severely underestimated UCLA students. Different years have different group abilities, so perhaps you are familiar with a down year group, but over time, I have been very impressed with UCLA students. All I know is that they get some great MCAT scores.



You are saying UCLA is a lowly state school. You are also being generous putting Stanford in a top 10 spot. And I'm telling you that from my experience with about 150 Stanford students and perhaps 7500 UCLA students, there is no gap. Stanford students are just as good as their less-indebted public school cohorts to the south. Their average MCAT scores are similar and their inherent intelligence seemed pretty comparable. The only major difference was that Stanford students could drop their classes at the last minute to salvage their GPAs.



I'm not sure which classes you are talking about, but I suspect that getting an A in a class like Movie Theory at UCLA is probably easier than getting a B in an upper division engineering class at Stanford, so I can't refute your comment. But when comparing the curriculum of a premed directly between the two schools, a UCLA A- student would be at the same place at Stanford.

In fact, I just took a look at comparable organic chemistry and physics postings from equivalent courses at the two schools, and it looks like the Stanford classes had much easier midterms in both cases. I'm not saying Stanford is a trade school by any means, but they are not that different than UCLA.

If a 3.9 UCLA = 3.3 Stanford as you say, then why would adcom value a UCLA 3.9 more than a Stanford 3.9? If what you say is readily obvious, then wouldn't that seem odd? And once again you support your position with a supposition that Stanford might have more students in top medical schools and end with a declaration of truth that UCLA has fewer. There's nothing like using your own unsupported beliefs to support your beliefs. I'd like to apply that same tactic. I think that the reverse is true, where UCLA undergrads fill top medical school classes more so than Stanford students. Take the medical school classes from the top twenty medical schools (sans Stanford and UCLA, because they likely favor their own) and you will likely see about a three-to-one ratio of UCLA students to Stanford students. In fact, I'd like to say it's seven-to-one. No wait, I'm settling on a final ratio of 13.7 : 1.

And lastly, and this I can speak of without hearsay, the Stanford financial aid package in the late 80s left an undergraduate in more debt than a Regent's scholarship to a UC campus. There were definitely people who choose a UC school over Stanford, despite being accepted to both, for purely financial reasons. I'm willing to bet it's the same thing today, when comparing the absolute top of the crop.

They are not opinions, they are facts. For instance,

http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/8805.html

Stanford Average indebtedness upon graduation: $15,172
http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9149.html

UCLA Average indebtedness upon graduation: $14,431

Is $15,172 really that different from $14,431? Perhaps you are not as up to date on all the facts as you are assuming?
It hardly matters what happened in the 80s or 60s or 20s for that matter. I am talking about now.

I attended UCLA for 3 years as an undergraduate and later for post-bacc, so I am very familiar with everything UCLA related. I must have taken at least 40 courses at UCLA. Do you really believe than in my 4 years at UCLA I have consistenly run into so called "down groups?"

Stanford is not a top 10 school? According to whom is it not a top 10 school? Who's using unsubstantiated claims, me or you?

The people whom I am referring to took undergraduate courses at Stanford even though they were graduate students there. Yes, you can take 5 or 6 undergraduate courses as a graduate student at Stanford. You can do the same thing at UCLA. So an undergrad student at Stanford is competing against peoople who were ranked #1 in India, China, Korea, and and number of European countries. You will not see this at UCLA.


Having an opportunity to drop a class late in the quarter doesn't even come close to compensating for the cut throat competition.
If you believe that Stanford students drop dozens of classes in this fashion, then how come they graduate in 4 years? So while people may drop a couple of classes during their undergrad years, this is hardly something that impacts the GPA to the extent you are assuming.

I am comparing apples to apples and NOT saying things like "the very best at school X is better than the very worst at school Y." The only fair comparison is average against average or best against best or worst against worst. I know their Stanford GPAs because I have seen their Stanford transcripts. I know their UCLA GPAs because I have seen their UCLA transcripts. Just because I don't have these documents handy and am not posting them on SDN doesn't mean it's hearsay.

If you have had experience with thousands of UCLA students and hunderds of Stanford students, do you claim to know all of their GPAs and all of their MCAT scores? You don't believe me when I tell you I have seen transcripts of several people who attended both schools and yet you base your argument on numbers which are orders of magnitude larger? That makes even less sense.

If I could not have seen transcripts for 5 people, how could you have seen transcripts for thousands of people? Or how do you know their scores for that matter? Saying things like "they seemed comparable to me, therefore they are comparable" is basing your arguments on nothing but opinion, the very same thing you are accusing me of.

If you really want, I can find LSAT averages for both schools. Stanford's LSAT average is close to 165, UCLA's close to 152. (That's 93% vs 60%). I have seen these numbers released by LSAC about 3 years ago. Like I have said before, the gap is huge. Unlike MCAT, LSAT scores don't fluctuate as widely, people get pretty much what their practice test scores were, so I am using LSAT as a more accurate measure.

Stanford is a better school than UCLA regardless of what you or me think. If neither one of us were ever born, Stanford would still be a better school than UCLA. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, overall, Stanford is the only school which has no major weaknesses. It's all around good. It's a top 5 undergrad school (according to US News; yes, these rankings are controversial, but they have more validity than any one person's opinion, including yours or mine). It's good at engineering, at law, at business, and at medicine. There is no other school in the country who could claim that. Certainly not UCLA.

 

[drizzt3117]

Stanford is a better school than UCLA but it isn't necessarily a more difficult one. The adcoms I've talked to that have a difficulty rating for schools have both schools at the same rating (4 out of 5), while Stanford's rival school across the bay has a difficulty rating of 5.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Stanford is a better school than UCLA but it isn't necessarily a more difficult one. The adcoms I've talked to that have a difficulty rating for schools have both schools at the same rating (4 out of 5), while Stanford's rival school across the bay has a difficulty rating of 5.

It is a more difficult school. It is a much more difficult school. I have attended both schools. Have you?

Adcoms all have opinions. Hell, opinions vary even WITHIN a given school. Unless you give me the opinions of all the adcoms for all the 120 or so med schools, you might as well cite your uncle's opinion. No offense.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

They are not opinions, they are facts. For instance,

http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/8805.html

Stanford Average indebtedness upon graduation: $15,172
http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9149.html

UCLA Average indebtedness upon graduation: $14,431

Is $15,172 really that different from $14,431? Perhaps you are not as up to date on all the facts as you are assuming?
It hardly matters what happened in the 80s or 60s or 20s for that matter. I am talking about now.

I attended UCLA for 3 years as an undergraduate and later for post-bacc, so I am very familiar with everything UCLA related. I must have taken at least 40 courses at UCLA. Do you really believe than in my 4 years at UCLA I have consistenly run into so called "down groups?"

Stanford is not a top 10 school? According to whom is it not a top 10 school? Who's using unsubstantiated claims, me or you?

The people whom I am referring to took undergraduate courses at Stanford even though they were graduate students there. Yes, you can take 5 or 6 undergraduate courses as a graduate student at Stanford. You can do the same thing at UCLA. So an undergrad student at Stanford is competing against peoople who were ranked #1 in India, China, Korea, and and number of European countries. You will not see this at UCLA.


Having an opportunity to drop a class late in the quarter doesn't even come close to compensating for the cut throat competition.
If you believe that Stanford students drop dozens of classes in this fashion, then how come they graduate in 4 years? So while people may drop a couple of classes during their undergrad years, this is hardly something that impacts the GPA to the extent you are assuming.

I am comparing apples to apples and NOT saying things like "the very best at school X is better than the very worst at school Y." The only fair comparison is average against average or best against best or worst against worst. I know their Stanford GPAs because I have seen their Stanford transcripts. I know their UCLA GPAs because I have seen their UCLA transcripts. Just because I don't have these documents handy and am not posting them on SDN doesn't mean it's hearsay.

If you have had experience with thousands of UCLA students and hunderds of Stanford students, do you claim to know all of their GPAs and all of their MCAT scores? You don't believe me when I tell you I have seen transcripts of several people who attended both schools and yet you base your argument on numbers which are orders of magnitude larger? That makes even less sense.

If I could not have seen transcripts for 5 people, how could you have seen transcripts for thousands of people? Or how do you know their scores for that matter? Saying things like "they seemed comparable to me, therefore they are comparable" is basing your arguments on nothing but opinion, the very same thing you are accusing me of.

If you really want, I can find LSAT averages for both schools. Stanford's LSAT average is close to 165, UCLA's close to 152. (That's 93% vs 60%). I have seen these numbers released by LSAC about 3 years ago. Like I have said before, the gap is huge. Unlike MCAT, LSAT scores don't fluctuate as widely, people get pretty much what their practice test scores were, so I am using LSAT as a more accurate measure.

Stanford is a better school than UCLA regardless of what you or me think. If neither one of us were ever born, Stanford would still be a better school than UCLA. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, overall, Stanford is the only school which has no major weaknesses. It's all around good. It's a top 5 undergrad school (according to US News; yes, these rankings are controversial, but they have more validity than any one person's opinion, including yours or mine). It's good at engineering, at law, at business, and at medicine. There is no other school in the country who could claim that. Certainly not UCLA.

Just out of curiousity, are you a Stanford Student Brokenglass?

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Has anyone heard of the Golden Standard MCAT CBTs (practice tests)?
What do you guys think about those.

 

[NRAI2001]

Which eye, right or left?
It may be wise to conduct yourself with the appropriate decorum suitable for a prospective DOCTOR.

CC I like you.......you re funny/phonny.

Its entertaing how everyone is punking you now; many of these people who are doctors, actual med students, mcat teachers...people you could benefit from immensely, but nevermind you re right everyone is wrong.

Please continue practicing being a doctor on a random premedical forum.

 

[NRAI2001]

Stanford is a better school than UCLA but it isn't necessarily a more difficult one. The adcoms I've talked to that have a difficulty rating for schools have both schools at the same rating (4 out of 5), while Stanford's rival school across the bay has a difficulty rating of 5.

Yaa Berkeley was Hard...I went there for undergrad.

I dont think there was a great difference between the type of student that went to Berkeley and that went to Stanford. Berkeley is a top school in almost every field, with tution only being $4K a year vs ~ $30K at stanford. You said Stanford gave 30% in any given class, where Berkeley's rule was to give 15% A's in the sciences. Even if there is a slight difference in the caliber of student between the school (though I think there is little difference) the difference is not two fold and doesnt warrent such of a difference in grade rewardal.

At my medical school interview my interviewer even told me that they highly consider grade deflation as a factor when looking students from schools like Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, John Hopkins...etc. I had a 3.4 gpa and she said in her eyes, my gpa was equivalent to a 3.8. THey used a scoring method and did give you extra points if you were from a top school, but I dont know if it was enough to raise my gpa to a 3.8.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Yaa Berkeley was Hard...I went there for undergrad.

I dont think there was a great difference between the type of student that went to Berkeley and that went to Stanford. Berkeley is a top school in almost every field, with tution only being $4K a year vs ~ $30K at stanford. You said Stanford gave 30% in any given class, where Berkeley's rule was to give 15% A's in the sciences. Even if there is a slight difference in the caliber of student between the school (though I think there is little difference) the difference is not two fold and doesnt warrent such of a difference in grade rewardal.

At my medical school interview my interviewer even told me that they highly consider grade deflation as a factor when looking students from schools like Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, John Hopkins...etc. I had a 3.4 gpa and she said in her eyes, my gpa was equivalent to a 3.8. THey used a scoring method and did give you extra points if you were from a top school, but I dont know if it was enough to raise my gpa to a 3.8.

UCLA and Berkeley have identical undergrad student bodies with identical acceptance rates. I know a ton of people who were accepted to both schools, or one or the other. There is no difference between the caliber of students at UCLA and Berkeley at the undergrad level. None.

I do admit that Berkeley is more demanding than UCLA at the undergrad level, even though student bodies are of the same quality. Expectations are somewhat higher of Berkeley students, even at the undergrad level for whatever reason.

At the grad level, Berkeley blows just about any other school out of the water. But that's at the grad level. People with 3.4 from Berkeley undergrad have a very slim to none chance of attending Berkeley grad programs, so even Berkeley itself doesn't give a 3.4 Berkeley undergard GPA that much weight. If you don't believe me, check with Boalt. You will be hard pressed to find a Berkeley undergrad with a 3.4 GPA who was accepted to Berkeley Law School.

Tuition is no longer a relevant issue. See my post above. The average indebtedness is nearly identical.

As far as Stanford giving out 30% A's, it's not the only top school to do so. Harvard, for instance, is doing the same thing. Are you suggesing that Harvard is less competitive than Berkeley?

 

[BrokenGlass]

Yaa Berkeley was Hard...I went there for undergrad.

I dont think there was a great difference between the type of student that went to Berkeley and that went to Stanford. Berkeley is a top school in almost every field, with tution only being $4K a year vs ~ $30K at stanford. You said Stanford gave 30% in any given class, where Berkeley's rule was to give 15% A's in the sciences. Even if there is a slight difference in the caliber of student between the school (though I think there is little difference) the difference is not two fold and doesnt warrent such of a difference in grade rewardal.

At my medical school interview my interviewer even told me that they highly consider grade deflation as a factor when looking students from schools like Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, John Hopkins...etc. I had a 3.4 gpa and she said in her eyes, my gpa was equivalent to a 3.8. THey used a scoring method and did give you extra points if you were from a top school, but I dont know if it was enough to raise my gpa to a 3.8.

Perhaps this adcom you speak of attended Berkeley, so he/she is somewhat biased. I can tell you from my previous law school application process that adcoms don't normalize grades based on institution or based on major or based on circumstances the grades were earned in. Nobody would give a damn if a person was at a major disadvantage for whatever reason when they were earning their GPA. They have 2 minutes to evaluate your file, so the easiest thing to do is to look at your grades at face value and use standardized test results as a normalizing factor.

I spoke with a former admission officer from Harvard Business School. He said he spent 30 seconds on a student's file. 30 seconds! He said when it's 2 am and you are on your 7th cup of coffee, that's the best you can do.

So even if one school cut you some slack for the school you attended, don't assume that others will do the same. Engineers have it really tough when it comes to GPAs but no adcom gives a damn. You draw your own conclusions.

 

[thehomelessguy]

I thought I'd throw in some advice on how I managed to get the following score on the July 24th mcat (the only time I took the test):

PS: 15
VR: 11
Writing: R
BS: 14

I also want to add that these scores were accomplished despite my reading/learning disabilities. Just so nobody complains I had no accommodations. In fact unless you're blind (which there are good, blind doctors) it's pretty much impossible to obtain any (there was a recent CA lawsuit over this). This should be obvious when one looks at their criteria. One needs to be less able than the average individual in the general population. Uhm yeah, no offense but the average person off the street isn't applying to medical school (the average applicant would make a lot more sense). Anyways rant over.


To score well rather than just taking endless practice tests (I took 3 during the time I reviewed for the mcats) and reading lots of review books, I took classes in the areas I was weak in. I'll list what I'd recommend for each section.


For the physical sciences, obviously good intro physics and chemistry are important but I would also recommend the following courses:

Differential Equations: If you have math up to calc II (some universities will try to make you take calc III first, but try to talk your way out of it) take an engineering Diff Eq course. It'll help immensely. I came away from it with a much deeper understanding of physics than I obtained in actual physics classes.

Analytical (Quantitative) Chemistry: This one is huge. Most of the "hard" mcat chemistry problems tend to be the ones that involve lots of calculations which is what you basically learn in this class. A bonus is that the class usually isn't too hard (gen chem is usually the only pre-req)


For the verbal I have no help. With my reading problems all I did was the Exam Krackers method of learning what the correct answers look like so I could get away with not fully reading passages.


For the BS section it's pretty obvious as most of the courses are listed as recommended by various medical schools, however I'll rank them in terms of usefulness:

1. Human Physiology. This should be required. It will help more than anything else in this section. Do anything short of killing someone to get into a class with a good instructor.

2. Biochemistry. This is obvious, but I actually found it less useful than human physiology

3. Genetics. I would only take this if you felt you forgot your intro course or your intro instructor was terrible. I didn't bother.

4. Anatomy. While it'll look good on an app (especially if it includes a cadaver lab), I don't really see it helping much on the MCAT's. They seem much more concerned with the physiology aspects. Since I'll get a corpse in med school I didn't bother with this.


As for the review books, of the ones I read only EK seemed to focus on the conceptually aspects (Kaplans was especially poor). I haven't seen the Berkley review materials so as for those I cannot say.


Anyways I'd highly recommend taking a course or two (even if you just audit them) rather than endless rounds of practice tests. Sorry for the long post.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Perhaps this adcom you speak of attended Berkeley, so he/she is somewhat biased. I can tell you from my previous law school application process that adcoms don't normalize grades based on institution or based on major or based on circumstances the grades were earned in. Nobody would give a damn if a person was at a major disadvantage for whatever reason when they were earning their GPA. They have 2 minutes to evaluate your file, so the easiest thing to do is to look at your grades at face value and use standardized test results as a normalizing factor.

I spoke with a former admission officer from Harvard Business School. He said he spent 30 seconds on a student's file. 30 seconds! He said when it's 2 am and you are on your 7th cup of coffee, that's the best you can do.

So even if one school cut you some slack for the school you attended, don't assume that others will do the same. Engineers have it really tough when it comes to GPAs but no adcom gives a damn. You draw your own conclusions.

Is that really true? I was hoping that coming from a tough engineering background, they will at least look at my application favorably (somehow).
Every one tends to agree that medical schools favor nontraditional students to an extent, so is that not true, since you seem to have many contacts and conversation with people at that level?
What can you tell me about that?
Thanks.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Is that really true? I was hoping that coming from a tough engineering background, they will at least look at my application favorably (somehow).
Every one tends to agree that medical schools favor nontraditional students to an extent, so is that not true, since you seem to have many contacts and conversation with people at that level?
What can you tell me about that?
Thanks.

Nobody's gonna cut you any slack for the difficulty of your major or the fact that you had to work while you were in school. It's not good for a school to accept people with 3.3 GPAs. It hurts their US News rankings. Despite what schools may claim, they care a great deal about rankings. Better rankings attract better students, etc. If a school accepts a person with a 3.3 GPA, they would have to accept someone with a 3.9+ to try to balance it out. No school wants their average numbers to plunge.

I majored in Computer Science, and it was a million times harder than premed, but that's just how it is. These things are not considered when GPAs are evaluated. Med schools (or all professional schools for that matter) have their own agendas and their own reasons for doing things. Fairness with regards to any particular applicant is not at the top of their list.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

I thought I'd throw in some advice on how I managed to get the following score on the July 24th mcat (the only time I took the test):

PS: 15
VR: 11
Writing: R
BS: 14

I also want to add that these scores were accomplished despite my reading/learning disabilities. Just so nobody complains I had no accommodations. In fact unless you're blind (which there are good, blind doctors) it's pretty much impossible to obtain any (there was a recent CA lawsuit over this). This should be obvious when one looks at their criteria. One needs to be less able than the average individual in the general population. Uhm yeah, no offense but the average person off the street isn't applying to medical school (the average applicant would make a lot more sense). Anyways rant over.


To score well rather than just taking endless practice tests (I took 3 during the time I reviewed for the mcats) and reading lots of review books, I took classes in the areas I was weak in. I'll list what I'd recommend for each section.


For the physical sciences, obviously good intro physics and chemistry are important but I would also recommend the following courses:

Differential Equations: If you have math up to calc II (some universities will try to make you take calc III first, but try to talk your way out of it) take an engineering Diff Eq course. It'll help immensely. I came away from it with a much deeper understanding of physics than I obtained in actual physics classes.

Analytical (Quantitative) Chemistry: This one is huge. Most of the "hard" mcat chemistry problems tend to be the ones that involve lots of calculations which is what you basically learn in this class. A bonus is that the class usually isn't too hard (gen chem is usually the only pre-req)


For the verbal I have no help. With my reading problems all I did was the Exam Krackers method of learning what the correct answers look like so I could get away with not fully reading passages.


For the BS section it's pretty obvious as most of the courses are listed as recommended by various medical schools, however I'll rank them in terms of usefulness:

1. Human Physiology. This should be required. It will help more than anything else in this section. Do anything short of killing someone to get into a class with a good instructor.

2. Biochemistry. This is obvious, but I actually found it less useful than human physiology

3. Genetics. I would only take this if you felt you forgot your intro course or your intro instructor was terrible. I didn't bother.

4. Anatomy. While it'll look good on an app (especially if it includes a cadaver lab), I don't really see it helping much on the MCAT's. They seem much more concerned with the physiology aspects. Since I'll get a corpse in med school I didn't bother with this.


As for the review books, of the ones I read only EK seemed to focus on the conceptually aspects (Kaplans was especially poor). I haven't seen the Berkley review materials so as for those I cannot say.


Anyways I'd highly recommend taking a course or two (even if you just audit them) rather than endless rounds of practice tests. Sorry for the long post.

yaaeeeeeeee, I am a physiology instructor,cool
actually thanks for the long post, great job
I am specifically weak on verbal, any ideas on how to improve other than what you stated?
Best of luck

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Nobody's gonna cut you any slack for the difficulty of your major or the fact that you had to work while you were in school. It's not good for a school to accept people with 3.3 GPAs. It hurts their US News rankings. Despite what schools may claim, they care a great deal about rankings. Better rankings attract better students, etc. If a school accepts a person with a 3.3 GPA, they would have to accept someone with a 3.9+ to try to balance it out. No school wants their average numbers to plunge.

I majored in Computer Science, and it was a million times harder than premed, but that's just how it is. These things are not considered when GPAs are evaluated. Med schools (or all professional schools for that matter) have their own agendas and their own reasons for doing things. Fairness with regards to any particular applicant is not at the top of their list.

Sounds discouraging, but may be true. I always regarded those adcoms as the sensless heartless medical school money cows, never expected better anyways.
I have another question for you, what about the graduate GPA, does that offset the undergrad gpa as some claim?
I am asking lots of gpa quesitons, don't get the impression that I have a low GPA, considering the fields of study, I am really very happy with my performance, we both come from engineering, so you know what I mean. Just curious since we came across some one who is an expert on GPA, inflation, financial packages,....god I have a headache,, just kidding
thanks, anyways

 

[brianoflee]

I have another question for you, what about the graduate GPA, does that offset the undergrad gpa as some claim?

To an extent, although how much likely depends on the school. The undergraduate (u)GPA, I believe, is almost always assigned a much higher weight than the graduate (g)GPA, however, and so even if your gGPA is a 4.0, if you (again, hypothetical you) have a low uGPA, the 4.0 you've received in grad school can only help you so much.

But it certainly can't hurt. Upwards trends always help

 

[BrokenGlass]

Sounds discouraging, but may be true. I always regarded those adcoms as the sensless heartless medical school money cows, never expected better anyways.
I have another question for you, what about the graduate GPA, does that offset the undergrad gpa as some claim?
I am asking lots of gpa quesitons, don't get the impression that I have a low GPA, considering the fields of study, I am really very happy with my performance, we both come from engineering, so you know what I mean. Just curious since we came across some one who is an expert on GPA, inflation, financial packages,....god I have a headache,, just kidding
thanks, anyways

I only know what I know from my personal experiences and the experiences of people I have known. Grad school GPA is not nearly as important as undergrad GPA (I was told this personally but a med school admissions director), but they still expect people to have done well in grad school, otherwise your grad school education becomes a liability, not an asset.

It makes sense to me because not every med school applicant has a graduate degree, so there is little basis for comparison.

But again, this is just information from a single source, so take it with a grain of salt. A different med school may care more about grad degrees and grades.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

CC I like you.......you re funny/phonny.

Its entertaing how everyone is punking you now; many of these people who are doctors, actual med students, mcat teachers...people you could benefit from immensely, but nevermind you re right everyone is wrong.

Please continue practicing being a doctor on a random premedical forum.

It is more fun when you do it all on your own,

 

[gilbertjgreen]

Just a question. . .

HOW/WHY IS THIS POST STILL GOING???!!!

This has turned into some kind of forum-within-a-forum.

 

[FIREitUP]

it seems that certain people rather whine than do something productive, while they really should be devoting the time they spend whining to MCAT review.
...just my speculation.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

why does this thread make so many people mad, there are million others, who is forcing who to read? good wise guys here are debating current and relevant issues, and lots of people are in fact interested in reading, I am,

 

[Corpus Callosum]

what do you guys think of the dog who inherited 12 million?

 

[brianoflee]

good wise guys here are debating current and relevant issue

what do you guys think of the dog who inherited 12 million?

 

[RoadRunner17]

I nominate CC for the "Most Annoying Use of a Smiley on SDN" as well as "Most Likely to Keep Bumping His Own Thread" category. Oh yeah, how about "Most Likely to Make Something Up to Support his Argument". Finally, "Most Likely to Disagree With God Himself"

Seriously you guys, let this thread die, and CC's pride and integrity along with it.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

I nominate CC for the "Most Annoying Use of a Smiley on SDN" as well as "Most Likely to Keep Bumping His Own Thread" category. Oh yeah, how about "Most Likely to Make Something Up to Support his Argument". Finally, "Most Likely to Disagree With God Himself"

Seriously you guys, let this thread die, and CC's pride and integrity along with it.

road runner why do you hate me so much, and why do you want to kill this thread, what difference does it make where we write,
and for the smiley, life to too short for anything else,you want me to cry,, I am a happy man

 

[Corpus Callosum]

I nominate CC for the "Most Annoying Use of a Smiley on SDN" as well as "Most Likely to Keep Bumping His Own Thread" category. Oh yeah, how about "Most Likely to Make Something Up to Support his Argument". Finally, "Most Likely to Disagree With God Himself"

Seriously you guys, let this thread die, and CC's pride and integrity along with it.

look if we agree on everything, life would become extremely boring, don't you think?

 

[RPedigo]

That "study" that you talked about probably doesn't exist. We are scientists, and the available numbers show that the MCAT is correlated with USMLE Step 1 scores. If you produce the data, we'll change our minds.

The MCAT is not an unfair test at all.

1. Sciences [physical sciences and biological sciences]
This tests a finite amount of information; all of the tested topics are available on the AAMC website. That isn't to say that it's a small amount of information, because it isn't. That's the point. Medical schools want to see if you can process and learn a bunch of information and apply it to new situations (passages). By doing this, you can prove that you are analytical, and have the ability to learn quite a bit of science. Both are vital attributes to handling the medical school curriculum. If you cannot get all the science tested on the MCAT down, you may not be well-suited to getting all of the material thrown at you in the first two years of medical school, and subsequently will perform badly on the Step 1.

It doesn't matter that the particular science is not imperative to being a good physician, because all you have to do is prove that you can learn a lot of information.


2. Verbal reasoning
This tests your ability to read a lot of foreign information quickly, process it, understand it, and be able to answer questions about it. Yes, it is the most difficult section on the test, because you can't "study" for it-- you either are analytical and able to process this information quickly, or you can't. That's why not many people improve vast amounts in verbal reasoning.

Having English as a second language is of course an impediment, but not necessarily an excuse. All the information presented to you in medical school and in research journals are likely to be in English (although journals tend to have translated copies available). They just want to know if you can read something in English and subsequently understand it-- whether or not it is your first language, it is going to most assuredly be the language that you will learn and communicate in.




Yes, it is a difficult test. It's also the best indicator they have to judge medical school performance. I cannot think of a more fair standardized test, as the AAMC tells you exactly what is expected of you on test day. Good luck on September 7th.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

That "study" that you talked about probably doesn't exist. We are scientists, and the available numbers show that the MCAT is correlated with USMLE Step 1 scores. If you produce the data, we'll change our minds.

The MCAT is not an unfair test at all.

1. Sciences [physical sciences and biological sciences]
This tests a finite amount of information; all of the tested topics are available on the AAMC website. That isn't to say that it's a small amount of information, because it isn't. That's the point. Medical schools want to see if you can process and learn a bunch of information and apply it to new situations (passages). By doing this, you can prove that you are analytical, and have the ability to learn quite a bit of science. Both are vital attributes to handling the medical school curriculum. If you cannot get all the science tested on the MCAT down, you may not be well-suited to getting all of the material thrown at you in the first two years of medical school, and subsequently will perform badly on the Step 1.

It doesn't matter that the particular science is not imperative to being a good physician, because all you have to do is prove that you can learn a lot of information.


2. Verbal reasoning
This tests your ability to read a lot of foreign information quickly, process it, understand it, and be able to answer questions about it. Yes, it is the most difficult section on the test, because you can't "study" for it-- you either are analytical and able to process this information quickly, or you can't. That's why not many people improve vast amounts in verbal reasoning.

Having English as a second language is of course an impediment, but not necessarily an excuse. All the information presented to you in medical school and in research journals are likely to be in English (although journals tend to have translated copies available). They just want to know if you can read something in English and subsequently understand it-- whether or not it is your first language, it is going to most assuredly be the language that you will learn and communicate in.




Yes, it is a difficult test. It's also the best indicator they have to judge medical school performance. I cannot think of a more fair standardized test, as the AAMC tells you exactly what is expected of you on test day. Good luck on September 7th.

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for wishing me luck, I need it.
As I may agree with you on 1), I have to strongly disagree with you 2)however. I am not making execuses. When you are conducting a strandardized exam, you have to place people on the same platform, and measure them using the same caliber. When English is not my first language, and I do not understand the passage, I am no longer being tested on my verbal reasoning and anlytical ability, instead I am being punished for my reading and vocabulary comprehension. (similar to GRE) When you and I read a passage, no matter what the circumstances are, I am at an unavoidable disadvantage, simply because I have to read and translate "to me", 2 stage process, and the 2nd may or may not go right.
This is my problem with the verbal reasoning section, far from reasoning, more often than not, I find myself struggling to comprehend the main theme and related details in the passage.
But hey, life is never fair, like Bill Gates once said.
Lastly, as for the article, I surely did read it, I am a science person too. I would never report a study without having actually SEEN IT AND READ IT. I can't inteligently comment on the whereabouts of that study now, but I sure would not be surprised if it vanished, would't be the first time an official report, that may or may not serve some cause or another, disappears.We are not living in a rational world afterall.

 

[RPedigo]

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for wishing me luck, I need it.
As I may agree with you on 1), I have to strongly disagree with you 2)however. I am not making execuses. When you are conducting a strandardized exam, you have to place people on the same platform, and measure them using the same caliber. When English is not my first language, and I do not understand the passage, I am no longer being tested on my verbal reasoning and anlytical ability, instead I am being punished for my reading and vocabulary comprehension. (similar to GRE) When you and I read a passage, no matter what the circumstances are, I am at an unavoidable disadvantage, simply because I have to read and translate "to me", 2 stage process, and the 2nd may or may not go right.
This is my problem with the verbal reasoning section, far from reasoning, more often than not, I find myself struggling to comprehend the main theme and related details in the passage.
But hey, life is never fair, like Bill Gates once said.
Lastly, as for the article, I surely did read it, I am a science person too. I would never report a study without having actually SEEN IT AND READ IT. I can't inteligently comment on where that study may me now, but I sure would not be surprised if it is gone, would't be the first one.

You have to see it from our prospective-- we don't think there's a secret AAMC ploy to get rid of all data that contradicts the MCAT. That just simply won't happen. If reliable data is gotten, it is published. If that study does exist, it surely still exists today. If it does indeed exist and is found, then we will change our minds. There is no AAMC conspiring going on between the media/researchers and the company.

Yes, English is your second language. I know for a fact that if I took the exam in Spanish I would perform more poorly on the Verbal Reasoning section, by virtue of it being my second language. However, all the material that you will have to read and comprehend in medical school is in English (textbooks, lecture notes, etc). You will not get your lectures in another language, so it is imperative that you know English well enough to be able to understand complex sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. Yes, it is punishing you for not having English as a first language, but it is doing so because having those technical English skills are important.

 

[Ookluh]

I tried reading all the banter, but just couldn't make it through it. Let's make one thing clear: Blanket statements and generalizations are just that.. they cannot and should not be applied to every situation. There may be some easy and tough majors at both schools (and by my name, I'm sure you've figured I'm a UCLA alumnus). From a Daily Bruin article several years back, which I still remember.. Scandinavian Studies (or whatever it's called) has an average GPA of 3.9something at UCLA. My department, Chemistry/Biochemistry, has an average GPA of 2.7something. Engineering was even lower. Everything is relative, and to say that UCLA is easier than Stanford seems highly subjective. I'm sure some classes at Stanford are more difficult than their counterparts at UCLA, just as I'm sure some classes at UCLA are more difficult than their counterparts at Stanford.

 

[proclivity]

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for wishing me luck, I need it.
As I may agree with you on 1), I have to strongly disagree with you 2)however. I am not making execuses. When you are conducting a strandardized exam, you have to place people on the same platform, and measure them using the same caliber. When English is not my first language, and I do not understand the passage, I am no longer being tested on my verbal reasoning and anlytical ability, instead I am being punished for my reading and vocabulary comprehension. (similar to GRE) When you and I read a passage, no matter what the circumstances are, I am at an unavoidable disadvantage, simply because I have to read and translate "to me", 2 stage process, and the 2nd may or may not go right.
This is my problem with the verbal reasoning section, far from reasoning, more often than not, I find myself struggling to comprehend the main theme and related details in the passage.
But hey, life is never fair, like Bill Gates once said.
Lastly, as for the article, I surely did read it, I am a science person too. I would never report a study without having actually SEEN IT AND READ IT. I can't inteligently comment on the whereabouts of that study now, but I sure would not be surprised if it vanished, would't be the first time an official report, that may or may not serve some cause or another, disappears.We are not living in a rational world afterall.

you should probably stop posting and study instead.