Apply according to which MCAT score?

[confusedanddazed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just got my MCAT retake score back and I went from a 29 on the old MCAT to the equivalent of a 39 on the new MCAT. How should I begin to make my school list? I know some schools average MCAT scores, so not sure where to go from here. Totally estatic about my new score, but is it wise to apply to top 20s with my other MCAT score?

Thx for any advice

 

[Hospitalized]

Gonna need a little more information besides just an MCAT score to assess where you should apply. A 39 is great, but it means next to nothing if you don't have a supporting act.

 

[confusedanddazed]

Gonna need a little more information besides just an MCAT score to assess where you should apply. A 39 is great, but it means next to nothing if you don't have a supporting act.

Average to above average ECs and clinical volunteer experience, lots of research experience in a chem lab with 3 pubs, 70 hours of shadowing at primary care office

Thx for your response and for any advice.

 

[efle]

GPA?

 

[confusedanddazed]

GPA?

Sorry for not providing this earlier: cGPA 3.85/sGPA 3.8

 

[GrapesofRath]

The problem with applying as if you have a "34" which is your average is that would imply perhaps applying to lower tier low yield schools, exactly the type who dont interview many people who hit 39 on the MCAT(even if it is after a prior attempt) due largely to how rarely such applicants ever actually end up matriculating at their schools.

There are schools that average and you might run into some evaluators at top schools who see that 29 on the first attempt and say "look at how many people hit 36+ on their first attempt" and judge you accordingly(which is worse than averaging your scores). But having said all that, I would still apply to a fair number of reaches. Perhaps just have more non top 20 schools in your list with 33-35 MCAT type medians than you would if you only had a single score of 39.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Just got my MCAT retake score back and I went from a 29 on the old MCAT to the equivalent of a 39 on the new MCAT. How should I begin to make my school list? I know some schools average MCAT scores, so not sure where to go from here. Totally estatic about my new score, but is it wise to apply to top 20s with my other MCAT score?

Thx for any advice

I had 2 MCATs, a 26 and a 34, so I recommend you use the highest, as places say they average, but I don't think they do, usually use the most recent. I assume that your GPA is also a 3.8 and above that correlates well with the high MCAT. The very top places may discount the 39, but anything at or above a 36 is sort of counted the same (amazing, btw). Congrats to you, and shoot for the stars if the GPA is also great.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Sorry for not providing this earlier: cGPA 3.85/sGPA 3.8

Ah, didn't read the whole thread. Top places will want to see the research, teaching, etc as well as the clinical exposure and volunteering.
Go the MDApps to see where folks have been successful. Your undergrad will play a small role, as top privates like their own.

Attached is a recent tracker update from U of Michigan, as a "public" IVY, look at who they like the most:

1. their own grads, 2. Harvard, 3. Stanford, 4 UC-Berkeley and Yale 5. Duke, 6. Northwestern and UCLA, 7 Wash U St. Louis, 8 Notre Dame 9 Columbia and Dartmouth, 10 U Penn and Williams.

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

What's the actual score?

 

[WedgeDawg]

Post a thread in the What Are My Chances forum with all the information you can give (there is a template in one of the stickies), and then people will be able to advise you better.

 

[efle]

Ah, didn't read the whole thread. Top places will want to see the research, teaching, etc as well as the clinical exposure and volunteering.
Go the MDApps to see where folks have been successful. Your undergrad will play a small role, as top privates like their own.

Attached is a recent tracker update from U of Michigan, as a "public" IVY, look at who they like the most:

1. their own grads, 2. Harvard, 3. Stanford, 4 UC-Berkeley and Yale 5. Duke, 6. Northwestern and UCLA, 7 Wash U St. Louis, 8 Notre Dame 9 Columbia and Dartmouth, 10 U Penn and Williams.

Surprised there's no Hopkins

 

[whatever5]

I would say apply as if you're a 34. Having a 34 wont keep you out of any med school in the country, the rest of your app may.

 

[Catalystik]

Top places will want to see the research, teaching, etc as well as the clinical exposure and volunteering.

And don't forget to provide evidence of leadership capabilities and interests outside medicine.

 

[LizzyM]

Be prepared (but not rehearsed) to address what you did differently the second time or why you had a poor showing the first time. You only get one shot on the boards and if you pass you are stuck with your score. Schools want to see that you learned something (besides the material on the MCAT) that you will use going forward as you face similar high stakes exams in the future.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Be prepared (but not rehearsed) to address what you did differently the second time or why you had a poor showing the first time. You only get one shot on the boards and if you pass you are stuck with your score. Schools want to see that you learned something (besides the material on the MCAT) that you will use going forward as you face similar high stakes exams in the future.

I had this all mapped out, but out of 10 interviews I attend, not one asked me about it.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I had 2 MCATs, a 26 and a 34, so I recommend you use the highest, as places say they average, but I don't think they do, usually use the most recent.

Who are the first ADCOMs you think of when you think of this site.

Goro?
LizzyM?
gyngyn?

You know what they all have in common? They all work at schools that average multiple MCAT scores.

Not a good idea to flatly say schools arent telling the truth because of your own n=1 story makes you believe otherwise. Great it worked out for you but like LizzyM said you get one shot at Step 1. It's certainly fair game to ask about and even if not asked about it certainly will get noticed. Nobody in their right mind would argue a 29 then a 39 on a retake is the exact same thing as a 39 the first time.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Who are the first ADCOMs you think of when you think of this site.

Goro?
LizzyM?
gyngyn?

You know what they all have in common? They all work at schools that average multiple MCAT scores.

Not a good idea to flatly say schools arent telling the truth because of your own n=1 story makes you believe otherwise. Great it worked out for you but like LizzyM said you get one shot at Step 1. It's natural for a medical school to see a lower first score regardless of the second and logically start to wonder how Step 1 might go for someone like that.

Yes, just reporting my N=1, with 12 II.

 

[Nietzschelover]

I have zero credibility on this issue, so always listen to @gyngyn and @GrapesofRath, @LizzyM, etc.

That said, IMHO a more "fair" method of averaging if that is going to be the most frequently applied standard would be to count the more recent, higher score twice, which in this case would yield a 35.5+. Unless there is some reason to think the re-take is a fluke seems like candidates should get credit for having the ability to show significant improvement. I mean, you can't get a significantly higher score by just wishing it to happen. And I continue to think that at least in some percentage of cases too much is assumed about poor judgment in terms of the first attempt "without being ready" because sometimes you don't know until you actually take it. Similarly, I think too much "good judgment" is attributed to some of those who score well the first time (and how do we know that those who score well the first time wouldn't dip on a second attempt?). I get the "only one shot at Step 1" argument, but I would think med students when they take that are on a more level playing field. MCAT takers come from different backgrounds, different quality of colleges, and can vary significantly in age. I don't necessarily think a 20 or 21 year old should be punished unduly for one less competitive score. All of the elements of the journey are difficult enough, and we see examples of many fine candidates still struggling mightily to get a MD acceptance, so a little more slack seems reasonable to this naive commentator.

 

[LizzyM]

I have zero credibility on this issue, so always listen to @gyngyn and @GrapesofRath, @LizzyM, etc.

That said, IMHO a more "fair" method of averaging if that is going to be the most frequently applied standard would be to count the more recent, higher score twice, which in this case would yield a 35.5+. Unless there is some reason to think the re-take is a fluke seems like candidates should get credit for having the ability to show significant improvement. I mean, you can't get a significantly higher score by just wishing it to happen. And I continue to think that at least in some percentage of cases too much is assumed about poor judgment in terms of the first attempt "without being ready" because sometimes you don't know until you actually take it. Similarly, I think too much "good judgment" is attributed to some of those who score well the first time (and how do we know that those who score well the first time wouldn't dip on a second attempt?). I get the "only one shot at Step 1" argument, but I would think med students when they take that are on a more level playing field. MCAT takers come from different backgrounds, different quality of colleges, and can vary significantly in age. I don't necessarily think a 20 or 21 year old should be punished unduly for one less competitive score. All of the elements of the journey are difficult enough, and we see examples of many fine candidates still struggling mightily to get a MD acceptance, so a little more slack seems reasonable to this naive commentator.

Do you know why we average? Not because we want to be anything but "fair" but because averaging produces the best predictor. It is all about "evidence" and "data".

I had this all mapped out, but out of 10 interviews I attend, not one asked me about it.

Would you rather be prepared and not be asked, or be asked but unprepared?

PS: I'd guess I wasn't one of your interviewers. 😉

 

[Goro]

Even with averaging, a 39 is nothing to sneeze at. So aim high!

Just got my MCAT retake score back and I went from a 29 on the old MCAT to the equivalent of a 39 on the new MCAT. How should I begin to make my school list? I know some schools average MCAT scores, so not sure where to go from here. Totally estatic about my new score, but is it wise to apply to top 20s with my other MCAT score?

Thx for any advice

 

[Lawpy]

Just got my MCAT retake score back and I went from a 29 on the old MCAT to the equivalent of a 39 on the new MCAT. How should I begin to make my school list? I know some schools average MCAT scores, so not sure where to go from here. Totally estatic about my new score, but is it wise to apply to top 20s with my other MCAT score?

Thx for any advice

There is some confusion here but @gonnif and @LizzyM said it best and you should heed their advice. The best metric for multiple MCAT attempts is averaging the scores, and this method is supported by many studies for several years.

In your case, you are technically applying with a 34 that is more shifted towards a 39 than to a 29 (very very few people can make a 10-pt upswing to score in the top 1%). But be prepared to explain your improvement when asked

So you should still apply to the top tiers but also add some mid tiers with a 34+ MCAT medians. The low tiers with a 30-32 MCAT medians will select against you because of yield protection. It is a strong school list and if everything else is done well (essays, interviews etc), you will do fine

 

[efle]

I have a very hard time believing the people that score 29 -> 39 perform the same as the group with a single 34. The low first score might be a mark against them for not properly preparing, but to act like it's evidence of less ability than a single 39 is nonsensical! Rather they look like a 100th percentile person that didn't prepare the first time, not the same at all to someone who prepared and hit 90th.

But the data is data, maybe the 39+ that didn't prepare the first time do go on to perform like single take 34s.

 

[LizzyM]

I have a very hard time believing the people that score 29 -> 39 perform the same as the group with a single 34. The low first score might be a mark against them for not properly preparing, but to act like it's evidence of less ability than a single 39 is nonsensical! Rather they look like a 100th percentile person that didn't prepare the first time, not the same at all to someone who prepared and hit 90th.

But the data is data, maybe the 39+ that didn't prepare the first time do go on to perform like single take 34s.

There may be too little data to really predict how a 29 to 39 applicant performs. Most of the pool of matriculants who have multiple MCATs may have two scores that are less than 5 points different between/among them

 

[GrapesofRath]

Do you know why we average? Not because we want to be anything but "fair" but because averaging produces the best predictor. It is all about "evidence" and "data".

I've read the reports on averaging multiple MCAT scores by the AAMC and I dont buy based off their work the best way to interpret a 29 and 39 is to simply "average" the scores you are talking about. In fairness, you've basically acknowledged this and the whole idea of the reports are "we've found a 28 and 32 perform at the level of a 30". Im still not necessairly as sold on fully buying the conclusions those studies made as others seem to be, but I can at least understand that logic.

For these cases though such as a 29 to 39, IMHO just adhering to those AAMC studies out of principle even when there are obvious limitiations to it just doesnt sound like the best way to evaluate such an applicant. Like you said, those studies dont really predict success for such a dramatic jump. That's just how I personally see it, obviously many disagree which is completely fine.

If a school wants to use the logic "You only get one chance to pass Step 1" as means to justifying scores and heavily considering the first score(which you often see) then actually fully follow on that logic. Only consider an applicants first attempt. I dont think such a policy is a good one, but at least it is consistent logic. After all the applicant has a chance to void so the argument "there were very unfortuante circumstances I couldnt control affecting my score" holds no value.

 

[efle]

Also curious about how schools report for the MSAR. If the school averages, do they report an average or the higher score?

 

[GrapesofRath]

Also curious about how schools report for the MSAR. If the school averages, do they report an average or the higher score?

Highest score. AAMC GPA/MCAT tables as well, all that data you see is using the applicants highest score. Individual schools have every incentive to report the highest score possible to give them the highest median/mean MCAT possible.

 

[efle]

Wow, yet another confounding layer for trying to read MSAR ranges. Wonder how much the numbers would drop if they reported averages instead

 

[GrapesofRath]

AAMC reports about 40-50% of applicants have multiple MCAT scores. Most people dont show much difference in their scores on retakes from the first attempt. So I dont really think it changes much. Especially with MSAR's we are talking about medians not means.

 

[Pantaloooons]

Highest score. AAMC GPA/MCAT tables as well, all that data you see is using the applicants highest score. Individual schools have every incentive to report the highest score possible to give them the highest median/mean MCAT possible.

Do you happened to have a source for this? I read on these forums that the latest MCAT score is used. Although, latest vs. highest are usually the same so it probably doesn't matter much.

Are the GPAs on MSAR from the AAMC or reported from each individual school?

I assumed all GPA/MCAT values were directly from the AAMC, after they've standardized their numbers.

 

[heybubbaa]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/4-0-40-rejected-everywhere-o-not-sure-what-to-do.1125322/

This thread could be an argument to apply broadly - I believe this person, who apparently applied very top-heavy, had a 40 MCAT that was retaken from a 28.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Do you know why we average? Not because we want to be anything but "fair" but because averaging produces the best predictor. It is all about "evidence" and "data".


Would you rather be prepared and not be asked, or be asked but unprepared?

PS: I'd guess I wasn't one of your interviewers. 😉

How and who determined it is the best predictor? And if that is the case, what if you knew a certain percentage of high scorers would score 3-5 points lower on a 2nd attempt? Would only seem fair in this analysis if all candidates had to take twice and average. And if you're assessing some kind of innate ability, how do you control for some who didn't study at all the first time and then 5 weeks later hit a high score or someone who studies for 8 months the second time? Best predictor of what exactly?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Wow, yet another confounding layer for trying to read MSAR ranges. Wonder how much the numbers would drop if they reported averages instead

It also makes me wonder about the schools that super-score.

 

[GrapesofRath]

How and who determined it is the best predictor? And if that is the case, what if you knew a certain percentage of high scorers would score 3-5 points lower on a 2nd attempt? Would only seem fair in this analysis if all candidates had to take twice and average. And if you're assessing some kind of innate ability, how do you control for some who didn't study at all the first time and then 5 weeks later hit a high score or someone who studies for 8 months the second time? Best predictor of what exactly?

There are much newer studies than this(Im sure sombody will link them) but this below are two types of studies ADCOMs are talking about when they say "the data shows the best predictor of medical school success is to take the average of the scores". The AAMC did one about 5 years ago just like this and I think LizzyM said her school started averaging after this study came out(they didnt before). I couldnt find the link to it through a quick google search but Im sure somebody will and post it.

Note like I said earlier I dont necessairly agree with the degree to which schools adhere to the conclusions made by the study(and I dont necessairly agree with all the conclusions) but this is at least in theory what's behind it. It's this logic really: medicine is evidence based and in our evaluations as medical schools, we use what evidenced based studies indicate is best.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...f_Four_Approaches_of_Using_Repeaters_.19.aspx

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...validity_of_the_MCAT_for_students_with.2.aspx

 

[Nietzschelover]

There are much newer studies than this(Im sure sombody will link them) but this is one example of the type of studies ADCOMs are talking about when they say "the data shows the best predictor of medical school success is to take the average of the scores". The AAMC did one about 5 years ago just like this.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...f_Four_Approaches_of_Using_Repeaters_.19.aspx

OK, I'll take a look. The idea seems to contradict the other AAMC position that anyone with a 27+ is likely to succeed.

My gripe I think is that the re-taker gets saddled with assumptions while the high scorer on 1st attempt gets attributes not necessarily deserved. You'd have to know the details of each case. The guy who never studied a lick and gets a 38, versus a guy who studies for a year solid and gets a 38 versus a guy who gets a 31 and within five weeks gets a 38. In terms of "judgment," "innate ability," etc, what are we to conclude?

Also think it is "unfair" that the re-taker is not only faced with trying to do better and "become competitive," but has to do TWICE as well as he or she thought in order to hit a desired target. It's not easy to go from 28 to 34 and the re-taker to really get to a 34 has to hit 40!

Again, we aren't talking about 2nd year med students on a relatively even playing field. We're talking about late adolescents/very young adults in most instances. The 28 or 29 and soon will be 30/31 becomes like a DUI you can't get expunged. The averaging ends up giving way too much weight to one factor/one test day in a candidate's overall application.

 

[Nietzschelover]

AAMC reports about 40-50% of applicants have multiple MCAT scores. Most people dont show much difference in their scores on retakes from the first attempt. So I dont really think it changes much. Especially with MSAR's we are talking about medians not means.

That percentage to me (because so high) suggests that averaging is too large of a penalty.

 

[efle]

OK, I'll take a look. The idea seems to contradict the other AAMC position that anyone with a 27+ is likely to succeed.

It's not contradictory, AAMC and (most) schools just have different goals. Anyone with a 27+ is very likely to pass steps. But beyond passing, the likelihood of top X% scores increases as the MCAT increases, so schools interested in sending students to competitive residencies want to find ways to accurately predict step performance well past the threshold for passing.

It makes sense to take such a harsh position about single vs retakes when you must keep your single (passing) step score.

 

[Nietzschelover]

It's not contradictory, AAMC and (most) schools just have different goals. Anyone with a 27+ is very likely to pass steps. But beyond passing, the likelihood of top X% scores increases as the MCAT increases, so schools interested in sending students to competitive residencies want to find ways to accurately predict step performance well past the threshold for passing.

It makes sense to take such a harsh position about single vs retakes when you must keep your single (passing) step score.

It doesn't make sense because you are talking about different things and people at different phases of the overall process when these things are judged. If they are going to be considered exactly the same then you shouldn't be able ot re-take MCATs....and unfortunately I think most candidates bank on the ability to do a re-take if needed without fully realizing how much of a DUI-effect the firt take is going to have. And if the goal is to measure ability, you just argued above that a 29 to a 39 doesn't, ability-wise, translate to just a 34.

 

[efle]

It doesn't make sense because you are talking about different things and people at different phases of the overall process when these things are judged. If they are going to be considered exactly the same then you shouldn't be able ot re-take MCATs....and unfortunately I think most candidates bank on the ability to do a re-take if needed without fully realizing how much of a DUI-effect the firt take is going to have. And if the goal is to measure ability, you just argued above that a 29 to a 39 doesn't, ability-wise, translate to just a 34.

I agree, I think making the MCAT single (passing) score would make it an even better predictor of step performance, assuming premeds were made aware that this is how it works. Working with the current system though, the best way to predict is to average.

I think 29 -> 39 is an outlier that gets its own very different interpretation, just like a 3.0 / 40 LizzyM is not going to be seen the same as a 3.9 / 31 is. But if I'm looking at two applicants, one with a 32 33 35 and another with a single 35, it makes sense to me to prefer the latter.

 

[GrapesofRath]

OK, I'll take a look. The idea seems to contradict the other AAMC position that anyone with a 27+ is likely to succeed.

My gripe I think is that the re-taker gets saddled with assumptions while the high scorer on 1st attempt gets attributes not necessarily deserved. You'd have to know the details of each case. The guy who never studied a lick and gets a 38, versus a guy who studies for a year solid and gets a 38 versus a guy who gets a 31 and within five weeks gets a 38. In terms of "judgment," "innate ability," etc, what are we to conclude?

Also think it is "unfair" that the re-taker is not only faced with trying to do better and "become competitive," but has to do TWICE as well as he or she thought in order to hit a desired target. It's not easy to go from 28 to 34 and the re-taker to really get to a 34 has to hit 40!

Again, we aren't talking about 2nd year med students on a relatively even playing field. We're talking about late adolescents/very young adults in most instances. The 28 or 29 and soon will be 30/31 becomes like a DUI you can't get expunged. The averaging ends up giving way too much weight to one factor/one test day in a candidate's overall application.

I agree with you to a fair extent. I dont agree with the degree to which some ADCOMs adhere to this (we must average no matter what) policy and I personally dont think you an ADCOM is interpreting the "evidence" from the AAMC studies the best way if this is your conclusion(nor is the AAMC if that's there conclusion).

The problem is you never know these "factors" behind a score. You can never really say if someone goes from 30 to 37 what caused the jump? Poor preparation the first time? Will that poor preparation/mentalty to such a big test carry over to Step 1(many people take the MCAT only 3 years before Step 1 so it's not like it is a huge jump in time)? Does the 30 reveal something about their ability; ie did they get lucky to some extent on the 37 the second time? You cant answer these questions really. But they exist and are more prevalant and likely to be relevant than somebody who takes the MCAT once and gets a 37 flat.

What I will say is by and large this "averaging " policy in theory shouldnt affect that many people(again in theory). The data shows only 30% of people who retake any score between 21-35(give or take 5%) show a 3+ point improvement. So even the person who goes from 29 to 32 and is averaged at 31 is applying with a 30.5 vs a 32. That 1.5 point difference really isnt going to decide someones fate. Now if there are schools where a 30.5 vs 32 is looked at as rather different, I find that an issue with the school and what they are valuing more than the average the MCATs policy. But that's a separate discussion and like I said "in theory" if admission is a reasonable process where we dont look upon a 30.5 vs 32 as significantly different at all, it wont have much bearing.

I agree, I think making the MCAT single (passing) score would make it an even better predictor of step performance, assuming premeds were made aware that this is how it works.

How would making the MCAT P/F make it a better predictor of anything? Im assuming that's what you mean by saying "passing". As it is we barely have any way of standardizing applicants.

OK, I'll take a look. The idea seems to contradict the other AAMC position that anyone with a 27+ is likely to succeed.

"Succeed"= graduation by that logic. But that's not what it is. Graduation is the absolute bare minimum. In medicine, bare minimum is the worst possible standard imaginable. That doesnt include the number of people who fail a board exam along the way, remediate a year, fail a clinical rotation, get a bad review from at least one attending, fail a shelf exam etc. Bascially graduating doesnt remotely mean that you didnt have problems meeting the bare minimum competencies required along the way. And even if you graduate, having problems meeting that training is a cause for very real concern. And much more than that, many residents/attendings who struggle or who you could say are lacking in key areas of the job didnt fail any of these things along the way or often didnt come close to failing.

You can read this link to see the data between academics and graduation(start at page 44). Basically if you just want to define "graduating" as success there is no point in even using academic metrics. The solid majority of 2.7/21 people who enter medical school will graduate.

https://www.aamc.org/download/434596/data/usingmcatdata2016.pdf

 

[Nietzschelover]

I agree, I think making the MCAT single (passing) score would make it an even better predictor of step performance, assuming premeds were made aware that this is how it works. Working with the current system though, the best way to predict is to average.

I think 29 -> 39 is an outlier that gets its own very different interpretation, just like a 3.0 / 40 LizzyM is not going to be seen the same as a 3.9 / 31 is. But if I'm looking at two applicants, one with a 32 33 35 and another with a single 35, it makes sense to me to prefer the latter.

Why? After all, a 32, 33, 35 suggests a pretty capable applicant. And how do you know the single 35 wouldn't get a 32/31 on a 2nd attempt? And how do you make all of those presumptions without knowing details about the prep work for each person? If someone has to hit a 40 to get to a 35 (after a 30) do you really believe that person is no more capable than someone whose ceiling is 35?

I'm going to restrain myself from a rant on the "evidence-based" culture which has taken over everything (not just "science"). "Studies show" cognitive therapy is better than psychoanalysis, but all the studies are set up as self-fulfilling prophecies to yield a conclusion that 5 sessions will work better than longer-term interventions. Think about how many times yo usee "evidence-based" and "cost-effective" in the same sentence. No one seems to care about what things actually mean anymore. Meaning is as dead as God is dead. Rant over.

 

[Nietzschelover]

I agree with you to a fair extent. I dont agree with the degree to which some ADCOMs adhere to this (we must average no matter what) policy and I personally dont think you an ADCOM is interpreting the "evidence" from the AAMC studies the best way if this is your conclusion(nor is the AAMC if that's there conclusion).

The problem is you never know these "factors" behind a score. You can never really say if someone goes from 30 to 37 what caused the jump? Poor preparation the first time? Will that poor preparation/mentalty to such a big test carry over to Step 1(many people take the MCAT only 3 years before Step 1 so it's not like it is a huge jump in time)? Does the 30 reveal something about their ability; ie did they get lucky to some extent on the 37 the second time? You cant answer these questions really. But they exist and are more prevalant and likely to be relevant than somebody who takes the MCAT once and gets a 37 flat.

What I will say is by and large this "averaging " policy in theory shouldnt affect that many people(again in theory). The data shows only 30% of people who retake any score between 21-35(give or take 5%) show a 3+ point improvement. So even the person who goes from 29 to 32 and is averaged at 31 is applying with a 30.5 vs a 32. That 1.5 point difference really isnt going to decide someones fate. Now if there are schools where a 30.5 vs 32 is looked at as rather different, I find that an issue with the school and what they are valuing more than the average the MCATs policy. But that's a separate discussion and like I said "in theory" if admission is a reasonable process where we dont look upon a 30.5 vs 32 as significantly different at all, it wont have much bearing.



How would making the MCAT P/F make it a better predictor of anything? Im assuming that's what you mean by saying "passing". As it is we barely have any way of standardizing applicants.



"Succeed"= graduation by that logic. But that's not what it is. Graduation is the absolute bare minimum. In medicine, bare minimum is the worst possible standard imaginable. That doesnt include the number of people who fail a board exam along the way, remediate a year, fail a clinical rotation, get a bad review from at least one attending, fail a shelf exam etc. Bascially graduating doesnt remotely mean that you didnt have problems meeting the bare minimum competencies required along the way. And even if you graduate, having problems meeting that training is a cause for very real concern. And much more than that, many residents/attendings who struggle or who you could say are lacking in key areas of the job didnt fail any of these things along the way or often didnt come close to failing.

You can read this link to see the data between academics and graduation(start at page 44). Basically if you just want to define "graduating" as success there is no point in even using academic metrics. The solid majority of 2.7/21 people who enter medical school will graduate.

https://www.aamc.org/download/434596/data/usingmcatdata2016.pdf

I'm agreeing with you largely as well, but notice all the assumptions you threw out there as possibilities for a re-taker but absolutelyt none for the "flat 37." Are we to conclude that the person is a 37 in some essential way, and not as a function to a really good or lucky day or really compulsive prep work beyond the norm of other applicants. There is a real difference in how the two cnadidates are treated. To borrow gyngyn's famous phrase...a re-taker has herpes. And here's the thing. The 37 on the first try may also herpes but we don't know, so as long as they aren't further tested and no presumptions are made about them they get to live without the stigma whether they have herpes or not.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I'm agreeing with you largely as well, but notice all the assumptions you threw out there as possibilities for a re-taker but absolutelyt none for the "flat 37." Are we to conclude that the person is a 37 in some essential way, and not as a function to a really good or lucky day or really compulsive prep work beyond the norm of other applicants. There is a real difference in how the two cnadidates are treated. To borrow gyngyn's famous phrase...a re-taker has herpes. And here's the thing. The 37 on the first try may also herpes but we don't know, so as long as they aren't further tested and no presumptions are made about them they get to live without the stigma whether they have herpes or not.

Well let's frame the discussion like this

https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...828-5564cbc3e810/retestertotalscorechange.pdf

Here is the AAMC data on retakes and how much better people do on retakes.

7% of people who retake a 30-32 obtain a 6+ point improvement. Even in the 24-26 range, only 8% of people show a 6+ point improvement. The table doesnt even go higher than a 7 point improvement because those are so uncommon.

So the point is this 30 to 37 or the functional equivalent is rare. So when you see a 37 with a prior 30 or 31 it stands out big time. Something about that person is different, very different, from the vast majority of 37 test takers. That's why those questions have to start arising. You are right, you can ask questions about any applicant. But there has to be something to provoke that line of thought. Having something like this that about 95% of applicants dont have(ie this substantial improvement) is unique enough it is going to start causing questions.

There just is a much better chance of these questions being relevant for a 30 to 37 as opposed to a 37 because what happened to them is something so uncommon. And naturally those questions are going to be about the 30. Something had to happen that led to a much worse performance the first time around before the 37, either pre-test, during the test or both.

 

[Lawpy]

@GrapesofRath @efle and @Nietzschelover what do you think of the following proposed system?

The AAMC enforces a one-shot deal for the MCAT expressed only in terms of overall percentiles with no subsection scores. The advantages for such system are:

1. It would correlate very strongly with medical school performance (both are one-shot deals)

2. The correlation would be between overall scores for both, rather than pulling hairs apart by deciding which subsection correlates what --> this is specifically important given the comments from adcoms that verbal is given the most slack for because of language barriers/educational background etc and verbal is least correlated with medical school performance

What are the disadvantages in this system?

 

[Nietzschelover]

Well let's frame the discussion like this

https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...828-5564cbc3e810/retestertotalscorechange.pdf

Here is the AAMC data on retakes and how much better people do on retakes.

7% of people who retake a 30-32 obtain a 6+ point improvement. Even in the 24-26 range, only 8% of people show a 6+ point improvement. The table doesnt even go higher than a 7 point improvement because those are so uncommon.

So the point is this 30 to 37 or the functional equivalent is rare. So when you see a 37 with a prior 30 or 31 it stands out big time. Something about that person is different, very different, from the vast majority of 37 test takers. That's why those questions have to start arising. You are right, you can ask questions about any applicant. But there has to be something to provoke that line of thought. Having something like this that about 95% of applicants dont have(ie this substantial improvement) is unique enough it is going to start causing questions.

There just is a much better chance of these questions being relevant for a 30 to 37 as opposed to a 37 because what happened to them is something so uncommon. And naturally those questions are going to be about the 30. Something had to happen that led to a much worse performance the first time around before the 37, either pre-test, during the test or both.

And your post hits on a fascinating point. As you say, a 5-6 point improvement is rare (although we see a bunch of examples of this or close to it posted regularly), but instead of the person getting credit for such rare improvement they actually get nailed for it.

 

[Lawpy]

And your post hits on a fascinating point. As you say, a 5-6 point improvement is rare (although we see a bunch of examples of this or close to it posted regularly), but instead of the person getting credit for such rare improvement they actually get nailed for it.

Is that really true? Or is it simply based on speculation on what the few adcoms here on SDN say (directed to general audience here)? Because what SDN says and how the real world works follow two different paths, as observed from the comments of @Rainbow Zebra and few others.

That doesn't mean what SDN says is wrong/exaggerated. It's a good guide to plan things out but honestly, I wouldn't use it as some sort of a predictive tool as to what happens behind closed doors.

 

[themathbook]

Mind to share how you go from 29 to 39? That's amazing....How did you study? And how much additional study time did you put in to make this change? thank you

 

[Nietzschelover]

@GrapesofRath @efle and @Nietzschelover what do you think of the following proposed system?

The AAMC enforces a one-shot deal for the MCAT expressed only in terms of overall percentiles with no subsection scores. The advantages for such system are:

1. It would correlate very strongly with medical school performance (both are one-shot deals)

2. The correlation would be between overall scores for both, rather than pulling hairs apart by deciding which subsection correlates what --> this is specifically important given the comments from adcoms that verbal is given the most slack for because of language barriers/educational background etc and verbal is least correlated with medical school performance

What are the disadvantages in this system?

I'm opposed to a one-shot deal for pre-meds. Have no stellar med school matriculants ever botched a final in undergrad? For me the compromise was averaging the way I suggested above....count the higher, more recent score twice. The candidate still gets the herpes penalty but it's more treatable.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Is that really true? Or is it simply based on speculation on what the few adcoms here on SDN say (directed to general audience here)? Because what SDN says and how the real world works follow two different paths, as observed from the comments of @Rainbow Zebra and few others.

That doesn't mean what SDN says is wrong/exaggerated. It's a good guide to plan things out but honestly, I wouldn't use it as some sort of a predictive tool as to what happens behind closed doors.

It's the AAMC standard...not the SDN standard. That is what everyone is saying.

 

[heybubbaa]

And your post hits on a fascinating point. As you say, a 5-6 point improvement is rare (although we see a bunch of examples of this or close to it posted regularly), but instead of the person getting credit for such rare improvement they actually get nailed for it.

I think that it is only fair. If someone goes from a 2.0 gpa their first 2 years to a 4.0 gpa their last 2, they will still get "nailed" for their initial academic performance, even though they had a huge turnaround (or, less drastically, if a students gets a D in orgo and retakes it to get an A). Sure, we can commend people who make such drastic changes in performance, but it doesn't change the fact that their entire application should be considered (failures and all).

 

[Nietzschelover]

I think that it is only fair. If someone goes from a 2.0 gpa their first 2 years to a 4.0 gpa their last 2, they will still get "nailed" for their initial academic performance, even though they had a huge turnaround (or, less drastically, if a students gets a D in orgo and retakes it to get an A). Sure, we can commend people who make such drastic changes in performance, but it doesn't change the fact that their entire application should be considered (failures and all).

Are you really going to compare two year performance in undergrad with taking the MCAT om a single day? Even so, even in your example, applicants apparently do get rewarded beyond just an "average" of gpa first 2 years versus last 2 years because of the credit given to "upward trend."

And are there any data that 39s become better physicians than 33s, or just better step scores?