Are Med Admissions Random or Inexplicable?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

LizzyM

the evil queen of numbers
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
27,757
Reaction score
51,576
I wrote this late last night and I think it deserves its own thread:


There really is nothing random about medical admissions:

Take an average to heavy load each term and earn an excellent gpa.

Do exceptionally well on the MCAT

Be memorable in a good way so that you get strong letters of recommendation from people who can give specific examples of how you stand out as a student, investigator, employee, volunteer, etc.

Medicine's foundation is scientific inquiry. Get a better understanding of how scientific progress is made by being involved in research for at least 10 weeks of full time or a year of part-time work (look at the MSAR for the proportion of students at each school that have research experience, it is very high). Schools that are reserach powerhouses are most interested in students who might be interested in engaging in research during their medical school training and not doing research before matriculation is considered a predictor of choosing to not to do it after matriculation into med school.

Medicine is a service profession so demonstrate your willingness to serve others by providing direct service to those in need in your community (ideal) or in places outside of your immediate area (a good adjunct to service in your own geographic area).

If you are going to invest 4 years and more than $100,000 in a medical degree, you should have some idea about what to expect in your career: the joys and the sorrows, the aggravations and the frustrations. This usually means spending some time along side physicians as fellow team members (for example, working as an emergency room scribe, interpreter or as an office assistant), shadowing, or long term volunteering in the same room as the physician. How do physicians in various specialties spend there time? What proportion of one's professional time is spent directly with patients vs the amount of time spent on tasks out of the patients' view? How does the physician achieve lifelong learning? What are some of the current models for delivering care and how might those change in the future? Can you see yourself living that life?

Medicine is a team endeavor and so it is helpful to demonstrate that you are a team player and someone who can be a contributing member of a group and, ideally, someone who is comfortable taking a leadership role in some endeavors.

Finally, it helps to be personable. This means being friendly, respectful, calming, courteous, cheerful, involved in interesting activities outside of school or work and interested in the interests and experiences of others (willing to be listener as well as a speaker in a conversation).

There are few perfect candidates but there are more than enough who seem to have at least a good blend of the attributes we seek.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Just in time for all the posts that have been saying this is a random process.
Seemingly random to us applicants, for sure, but it's comforting to know that it's not.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
As always, good stuff. Thanks.
 
This comment is great! Would have been fantastic to read when I was a freshman. I vote to sticky it
 
I guess I wouldn't claim that the process is actually random, but rather that it is often perceived as if it were by many applicants (myself included). The issue seems to lie in the areas of the application that aren't easily or universally quantifiable. Suppose two applicants have relatively competitive numbers, but some sort of minor imperfection elsewhere in their application. Which one of these applicants is more competitive is going to be completely dependent on the opinion of whoever reviews the application, which will likely vary within a single institution.

The problem lies in the fallibility of applicants. As you said, "there are few perfect applicants," leaving the vast majority of applications with some sort of flaw. It is how these flaws affect application outcomes that results in perceived (but not literal) randomness.

So, the process may as well be random--as application outcomes seem to be largely unpredictable (an unpredictability resulting from inherent subjectivity that could very well give a single application two different outcomes depending on when an application was reviewed, and who it was reviewed by).
 
I wish every person who came to this website read this before ever getting to the forums. Perfectly explained and stated. Cheers to that.
 
Thanks for the great post LizzyM.

I have to admit that I used to read your posts with the persona of Gal from Sturdy Wings. Now I read your posts with the persona of M from Bond (I have yet to see the new Bond but know what will change with that). Needless to say, your advice has become much more serious and top secret.
 
Great, informative post.

And not to be a downer, but I would make the argument that you can be more than adequately experienced (service, clinic, leadership), have an above average GPA, above average MCAT, apply early and broadly, interview well...and still not get a seat. Rare or not, it happens.
 
Perhaps not random, but it's not a perfect formula, either.

Why did I get accepted to two state schools as an out-of-state applicant, but did not get accepted at my own state school? One of the OOS schools is ranked comparatively to my state school, so it's not really a matter of one being a reach school and the other being a safety.

The answer is that it depends on a lot of factors--how I interviewed, how those reviewing my application perceived me, what each adcom was looking for in their students that year... but all those make the process seem super random from the applicant's side.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I hate to be negative the process is not standardized, and if any thing is not standard then chances are it becomes random. Sometimes the process is very inefficient(multiple statements, essays etc and rerecording your grades) and time consuming. Anything that is outside free market is not good.
 
It's been a struggle to develop myself as a potential med school candidate, but this is a great representation of what I have tried to do. I am particularly worried about my less than "exceptional" MCAT score, but I can safely say that the struggles I've put myself through in order to become a more competitive med school applicant have diversified my repertoire of professional experiences, and have given me leadership skills that I will use and continue to refine for the rest of my life, regardless of my career choice.
 
I'm just annoyed that a 3.5 gpa is considered "bad." That's the only problem I have with the process.
 
Something that could make it look random is the ranking if the subjective parts of the app.
Really, how can you rank ECs and essays?
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.
 
You seem to have forgotten a major component: whether you're a URM or not.

If so, getting an "average GPA" and "average MCAT" are needed, not "exceptional" as you pointed you.

Sorry if this offends anyone. Facts are facts. Look it up.
 
But it is bad, when the other applicants have a 3.7.

Yeah, but look at other kids in college. How many people can say they have a 3.5+ GPA? I'm not saying let people with 2.0's into med school, but judging by some of the incompetent physicians in the workforce, clearly a 3.7+ GPA isn't the only factor in making you a good physician.
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.


I suppose you could argue that the adcom finds the 5% of applicants who scored highest on the dimensions that they find most important.

But that is beside the point. LizzyM is saying that there are clear factors and measures that determine the a candidates desirability (so while more than 5% of applicants are qualified, the 5% selected are the most desirable). The problem is that the relative importance of each of those factors is not static. It depends on the other people already accepted, and the personal philosophy of the school. It looks random because applicants don't know the how each individual school approaches selection, but LizzyM is telling us that there is a logical system in place.
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.

Thanks for the post LizzyM, but I agree with much of what Bangersandmash says here. I would like to see some of these points addressed.
 
I suppose you could argue that the adcom finds the 5% of applicants who scored highest on the dimensions that they find most important.

But that is beside the point. LizzyM is saying that there are clear factors and measures that determine the a candidates desirability (so while more than 5% of applicants are qualified, the 5% selected are the most desirable). The problem is that the relative importance of each of those factors is not static. It depends on the other people already accepted, and the personal philosophy of the school. It looks random because applicants don't know the how each individual school approaches selection, but LizzyM is telling us that there is a logical system in place.

So in essence the entire process is in fact random because EACH INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL has it's own logical system in place. That's exactly the problem and why people think the process is random. I guess that's why they tell you to apply broadly too. If each school has different criteria for acceptances and weights things differently, how the hell are we supposed to know what to do beyond good grades/MCAT/shadow/research/volunteer? If one school values the arts, should I play in the school band to stand out? If one school values a struggle, does that give someone from a poor household with lower stats a leg up because they had to help take care of their siblings?

RANDOM.
 
The answer most likely that will be given will be because you did not "fit" the school. Except I have not seen anyone ever explain in definite, specific terms what makes a candidate a good "fit" at one place, but not another.
 
The answer most likely that will be given will be because you did not "fit" the school. Except I have not seen anyone ever explain in definite, specific terms what makes a candidate a good "fit" at one place, but not another.

I hope Lizzy has some definitive answers, because otherwise it's looking like the process is...




RANDOM.
 
+1

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I am confused how this post is in anyway insightful or helpful. Honestly, it's the same stuff that's all over these threads....good mcat, good grades, leadership, shadowing ...blah blah blah... aka molding the perfect cookie cutter applicant.

These applicants seem to be a dime a dozen. Doesn't explain the varying degrees of success that some applicants have opposed to others.
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.

I actually think this is where being a older/working world applicant gives one a good perspective. This is how I read Lizzy's post:

"If you have a 3.8+ and a 34+ MCAT score, have solid extracurriculars that demonstrate a commitment to serving others (volunteering), expanding our current knowledge (research), and understanding the job that you are competing for (clinical experience), and if you are able to communicate that you've reflected on your experiences and can add to the student body in a unique way both in writing (well-written personal statement, work/activities section, secondaries) and verbally (interview), that you almost certainly will get into 1 of the 125+ allopathic medical schools in the country (applying broadly)."

That doesn't seem least bit random to me. And by no means is it trivial to achieve all of the above. But the further you are from that ideal the less your certain is that certainty. Simple.

It seems to break down only because people think that their "stats" justify getting into the "right" school. :rolleyes: Or that if person A with X GPA and Y MCAT and Z hours got an interview from school J and person B with X+0.1 and Y+1 and Z+100 didn't then it's "random." Which isn't true. It's a lot like applying to jobs: your qualifications might make you a great candidate, but you still won't get hired everywhere. However, you'll still probably get hired somewhere.
 
The fact that schools all seem to place a different value on the things you mentioned also seems to add a degree of randomness.
 
Thanks for the tips!

Quick question though, when you say taking an average to heavy course load, do you mean heavy in terms of hours or in terms of how busy you will be? Next semester, I will be only taking 12 hours, which is the minimum at my school to be a full time student. However, these 12 hours include Physics I, Ochem II, Ochem lab, Physics Lab, and Molecular biology. Would an adcom view taking only 12 hours as too little or would they look at why I took only 12 hours that semester?
 
I actually think this is where being a older/working world applicant gives one a good perspective. This is how I read Lizzy's post:

"If you have a 3.8+ and a 34+ MCAT score, have solid extracurriculars that demonstrate a commitment to serving others (volunteering), expanding our current knowledge (research), and understanding the job that you are competing for (clinical experience), and if you are able to communicate that you've reflected on your experiences and can add to the student body in a unique way both in writing (well-written personal statement, work/activities section, secondaries) and verbally (interview), that you almost certainly will get into 1 of the 125+ allopathic medical schools in the country (applying broadly)."

That doesn't seem least bit random to me. And by no means is it trivial to achieve all of the above. But the further you are from that ideal the less your certain is that certainty. Simple.

It seems to break down only because people think that their "stats" justify getting into the "right" school. :rolleyes: Or that if person A with X GPA and Y MCAT and Z hours got an interview from school J and person B with X+0.1 and Y+1 and Z+100 didn't then it's "random." Which isn't true. It's a lot like applying to jobs: your qualifications might make you a great candidate, but you still won't get hired everywhere. However, you'll still probably get hired somewhere.

How do you know I'm not an older, working world applicant? I'm well aware of the expanded view you took LizzyM's post to mean. That's also been beaten to death on this forum.

The fact remains is that why will you get into 2 allopathic schools here and get rejected from 15 other allopathic schools there? Just because you get accepted doesn't mean the process isn't random.
 
I can straighten the process. Let MCAT decide who gets in. Nothing else.
 
I can straighten the process. Let MCAT decide who gets in. Nothing else.

A few hundred people get 35+ scores every year. If 200 of them apply to a school with 60 seats, how do you choose? Lowest sub score standard deviation?
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.

yeah this
 
How do you know I'm not an older, working world applicant? I'm well aware of the expanded view you took LizzyM's post to mean. That's also been beaten to death on this forum.

The fact remains is that why will you get into 2 allopathic schools here and get rejected from 15 other allopathic schools there? Just because you get accepted doesn't mean the process isn't random.

I don't know who you are from Tom. I'm saying that is what heavily informs my perspective. And actually, that second paragraph exactly means that the process isn't random. We're simply talking about two different processes. I (and I believe LizzyM) am talking about the process of becoming one of the ~17000 people who are accepted to medical school (as opposed to the ~28000 who aren't).

There simply no way that a given school can admit every exceptionally qualified applicant. Any admissions director could replace their incoming class two or more times over. But, I don't need to be "better" than 95% of other applicants. If I apply broadly, I just need to be better than 60% of them. and if I have all of that stuff up there, I will be. Guaranteed. Ergo, not random.
 
I don't know who you are from Tom. I'm saying that is what heavily informs my perspective. And actually, that second paragraph exactly means that the process isn't random. We're simply talking about two different processes. I (and I believe LizzyM) am talking about the process of becoming one of the ~17000 people who are accepted to medical school (as opposed to the ~28000 who aren't).

There simply no way that a given school can admit every exceptionally qualified applicant. Any admissions director could replace their incoming class two or more times over. But, I don't need to be "better" than 95% of other applicants. If I apply broadly, I just need to be better than 60% of them. and if I have all of that stuff up there, I will be. Guaranteed. Ergo, not random.

I think maybe we need some clarification from the OP herself.
 
To be honest, this thread isn't too insightful when you consider all of this has been said in one thread or another. It's good to hear from a school admin who feels the process isn't random, but I don't think you really addressed why some of us perceive the process to be random.

As others have said, what about personal essays and ECs beyond the standard research, shadowing, volunteering you talk about? What about the fact that most med school acceptance rates are below 10% (many below 5%)? Are you willing to say that only 5% of applicants are truly qualified? Or does it honestly come to a point where the committee has 350 applicants they feel are qualified and they have to pick only 120 of them? How do you explain how someone can get accepted to one higher ranked IS university but get rejected from 4 others (some lower ranked, some not). What about the occasional URM who gets in with lower stats? Most people go beyond randomness and claim it's reverse discrimination.

We've all heard the stories that make the process frustrating and leave you wondering "Why me?" I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues.

Clearly, when there are 5,000 applications for 100-200 seats, it will not be possible to accept every qualified candidate. However, it is quite clear when you look at average gpa and MCAT for applicants and matriculants and you look at the gradient of proportion of admitted applicants by race, gpa and MCAT that there is no randomness at all but very deliberate choices and it holds true that among the things you have power over, earning an excellent gpa and scoring very well on the MCAT are the two greatest predictors of success as a medical school applicant.

Consider too, that sometimes there are deliberate choices that might seem random. All other things being equal, we might take someone from a geographic area we don't see often over someone from the same area as three dozen more highly rated applicants who we've already admitted. At a different school, the tables might be turned and the reverse decision might be made.

If this were a random process, we could just pick your names out of a hat. It would certainly save time.
 
Getting in somewhere: arguably not random. Having a certain set of qualities will almost always get you into a medical school somewhere, and those qualities are getting increasingly competitive each year. There that is.

But, competing with applicants similar to you at a specific school always has a variable amount of randomness to it, unless you were dealt the exact same hand at birth, have the same teachers/schools/tests along the way, and are all reviewed and interviewed by the same person at the same point in time. Otherwise, randomness creeps in.

Now, if we had med school Match, and everyone's experiences and interview could be given a universal quantitative score (or only the MCAT/GPA were used...hrm), then it wouldn't be random. The minute someone picks up your essay to read it, or you walk into a room with an overworked interviewer, an element of random comes in, and it is typically significant.

Just because a reason can be given to the question of "why?" doesn't mean the process doesn't have randomness in it.

---

Example:
LizzyM said:
Consider too, that sometimes there are deliberate choices that might seem random. All other things being equal, we might take someone from a geographic area we don't see often over someone from the same area as three dozen more highly rated applicants who we've already admitted. At a different school, the tables might be turned and the reverse decision might be made.

This is, in essence, random - this particular year, more qualified people came from Region X than Region Y. Perhaps I just disagree here, but this doesn't make things "not random" - it just means there's a reason for why random has impacted you.
 
A few hundred people get 35+ scores every year. If 200 of them apply to a school with 60 seats, how do you choose? Lowest sub score standard deviation?

Simple, MCAT does not have to be 45 max. Make it 1000 points for same no of questions and you can get differences that you seek.
 
Simple, MCAT does not have to be 45 max. Make it 1000 points for same no of questions and you can get differences that you seek.

But this difference will not be meaningful. If the MCAT was out of 1000, a difference of 50 points might simply be a result of getting 2 or 3 more questions correct, and adcoms will be able to interpret this difference.
 
Clearly, when there are 5,000 applications for 100-200 seats, it will not be possible to accept every qualified candidate. However, it is quite clear when you look at average gpa and MCAT for applicants and matriculants and you look at the gradient of proportion of admitted applicants by race, gpa and MCAT that there is no randomness at all but very deliberate choices and it holds true that among the things you have power over, earning an excellent gpa and scoring very well on the MCAT are the two greatest predictors of success as a medical school applicant.

Consider too, that sometimes there are deliberate choices that might seem random. All other things being equal, we might take someone from a geographic area we don't see often over someone from the same area as three dozen more highly rated applicants who we've already admitted. At a different school, the tables might be turned and the reverse decision might be made.

If this were a random process, we could just pick your names out of a hat. It would certainly save time.


Picking and choosing winners and losers is not exactly merit either, it is random but I do agree with some of your arguments not all though.
 
I don't know who you are from Tom. I'm saying that is what heavily informs my perspective. And actually, that second paragraph exactly means that the process isn't random. We're simply talking about two different processes. I (and I believe LizzyM) am talking about the process of becoming one of the ~17000 people who are accepted to medical school (as opposed to the ~28000 who aren't).

There simply no way that a given school can admit every exceptionally qualified applicant. Any admissions director could replace their incoming class two or more times over. But, I don't need to be "better" than 95% of other applicants. If I apply broadly, I just need to be better than 60% of them. and if I have all of that stuff up there, I will be. Guaranteed. Ergo, not random.

I completely agree with you, but that makes this whole thread quite misleading, especially coming from a school admin. Still, if you look at the chart, the chances aren't 100% to be accepted even with superior stats. At the end of the day, you're going to hear about the slightly below average people who didn't get in ANYWHERE while others did. That takes away some legitimacy to the points we agree on.

Clearly, when there are 5,000 applications for 100-200 seats, it will not be possible to accept every qualified candidate. However, it is quite clear when you look at average gpa and MCAT for applicants and matriculants and you look at the gradient of proportion of admitted applicants by race, gpa and MCAT that there is no randomness at all but very deliberate choices and it holds true that among the things you have power over, earning an excellent gpa and scoring very well on the MCAT are the two greatest predictors of success as a medical school applicant.

Consider too, that sometimes there are deliberate choices that might seem random. All other things being equal, we might take someone from a geographic area we don't see often over someone from the same area as three dozen more highly rated applicants who we've already admitted. At a different school, the tables might be turned and the reverse decision might be made.

If this were a random process, we could just pick your names out of a hat. It would certainly save time.

I get what you're saying Lizzy, but unfortunately, your explanation is the very essence of the randomness we as applicants see. Why do you want someone from a different area suddenly after you've already selected three dozen from the same area? Fairness (and hence least random) perceptions would mean you take an equal number of people from each region.

I'm glad to know every school has specific, non-random criteria for the applicants they admit. Unfortunately, the applicant who just applied to 20 schools doesn't have insight into the minds of the ADcom at each school. He or she also doesn't understand why 18 schools rejected her, while the 2 schools that accepted her were of higher rank.

Getting in somewhere: not random.
But, competing with applicants similar to you at a specific school always has a variable amount of randomness to it.

Now, if we had med school Match, and everyone's experiences and interview could be given a universal quantitative score (or only the MCAT/GPA were used...hrm), then it wouldn't be random. The minute someone picks up your essay to read it, or you walk into a room with an overworked interviewer, an element of random comes in, and it is typically significant.

Just because a reason can be given to the question of "why?" doesn't mean the process doesn't have randomness in it.

---

Example:

This is, in essence, random - this particular year, more qualified people came from Region X than Region Y. Perhaps I just disagree here, but this doesn't make things "not random" - it just means there's a reason for why random has impacted you.

Agreed.
 
But this difference will not be meaningful. If the MCAT was out of 1000, a difference of 50 points might simply be a result of getting 2 or 3 more questions correct, and adcoms will be able to interpret this difference.

Then you should get those two questions right. Harsh yes but fair too.
 
Then you should get those two questions right. Harsh yes but fair too.

Except how can we ensure that every test is equivalent in difficulty? To ensure fairness, you would have to make ONE test for ONE day with everyone having the same exact testing conditions. You're goal of objectivity is delightful, but impractical.
 
Except how can we ensure that every test is equivalent in difficulty? To ensure fairness, you would have to make ONE test for ONE day with everyone having the same exact testing conditions. You're goal of objectivity is delightful, but impractical.

You are right, to be absolutely fair, one test one day.
 
Then you should get those two questions right. Harsh yes but fair too.

I don't get what you are saying... On a scale of 45, 2 questions = 1 point. On a scale of 1000, 2 questions = 50 points. You are only getting an inflated score, that's why I said making the MCAT out of 1000 wouldn't solve the problem. At the end of the day, they are all the same lol
 
I don't get what you are saying... On a scale of 45, 2 questions = 1 point. On a scale of 1000, 2 questions = 50 points. You are only getting an inflated score, that's why I said making the MCAT out of 1000 wouldn't solve the problem. At the end of the day, they are all the same lol

Each question should translate to one point instead of a range that they have now and you will get the discrimination that you need.
 
Top