Jesus ...
Honestly, I've spent far, far too much time on SDN today and I find replying to this post absolutely painful. I'm going to reply once - please take my responses at face value because I cannot, CANNOT come back and spend more hours on SDN in this pointless debate all day.
You're grasping at straws. Paying for a review course doesnt make a good score, it helps you reach your potential. Many people just don't have the potential to get a 30. They're just not smart enough. No review course or amount of studying is going to get them there
What's the difference between a poor kid who can't afford the prep course and an average kid with lots of resources who spends time, money, etc, on courses, books, and practice test? Frankly, they are probably going to end up with fairly similar, fairly average scores, but obviously one got to live up to their potential and one didn't. I'm absolutely not claiming that you can studying forever and get a 40.
My point here was two fold (and you came into the debate late and are now making it even more random and off-topic):
There are various paths to success on this test, and trying to claim that one kid who works 40 hours a week while attending community college and sits for the test once has the same chance as a kid at a university who takes a 2k prep course, studies 20 hours a week, and sits multiple times isn't correct. I'm not saying the second jackass will get a 40 if he doesn't have the aptitude, but I AMMMM saying that maybe his baseline would have been a 25 and he worked up to a 28, where the first kid, if given the same opportunities, would have been a baseline of 28 and a max/worked up to a 31 or 32 or something.
Keep in mind too that I'm not trying to make wild accusations because I didn't do well on the MCAT or something ... I'm in that 30++ club you mentioned.
C'mon Jagger...You've been in med school for like a few months.
And I'm not trying to teach an anatomy course or perform neurosurgery ... what I'm trying to say (for the love of Christ) is that I have more knowledge with regard to medical coursework, curricula, how it works, etc, than a pre-medical student who has NEVER sat for an official medical school lecture. Therefore, I find it laughable when pre-medical students on SDN (I'm not even talking about you here Jeff, just making generalizations for the sake of this argument) try to tell medical students (even if they've been in school for a freaking day) the way it works. I don't tell attendings how to ddx and operate, nor would I think pre-meds should tell medical students how medical school works.
Yeah, Jefferson is a definitely more respected than PCOM. Sorry. It's a well respected med school
Super. I don't even remember if this was the point. People are taking issue with equating things like higher MCAT scores (even down to the level of singular points) to a higher quality and a better education in general. If you want to say Jefferson is more respected in the medical community - awesome, I don't care, it's probably true, great. However, if you want to say that Jefferson is 'better' than Drexel, PCOM, whatever else, because of a few points on the MCAT ANDDDD then extrapolate this to someone state that the education is superior ... I take issue.
Of course it's important ... I don't think anyone has doubted that. However, to say 'dumb people never score high,' is just an awkward, essentially impossible to prove sort of statement. It's an important test, it's definitely measures some crucial critical thinking skills, but what's dumb? What's high? Dumb like ... I'm not good at physics? Or dumb like, I'm a g-chem phenom, but I don't understand microeconomics and have a hard time carrying on a conversation in a social setting? High like a 30, or high like a 40??? E. T. C.
MCAT is a good indicator of the kind of students a school can attract. People love to say, oh my school looks beyond the numbers. The truth of the matter is that if a school has an MCAT/GPA of 27/3.4 you can be damned sure that it cannot consistently attract students with much higher stats
Anecdotal. Take a school like PCOM, for example, with an average of (I honestly am just guessing here and refuse to go look it up) 3.5/26-27 (?) that receives 3,500 - 4,000 applicants a year for 200ish (again, guessing) spots. You're going to tell me that they couldn't absolutely cherry pick 200-250 people with higher average MCATs than 27? You really think that a 28-29 is an inconsistent fluke in that applicant pool? Because I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong here ... AT ALL -trying to blame lower MCAT average solely on 'looking at the whole person' is a lie, but there are definitely other factors involved when you have 4k applicants for 200 spots and still have lower than usual MCAT averages. Nothing controversial there. Additionally, do I think that the Yales and Harvards of the world attract higher numbers and select from a higher average pool compared to a PCOM (for example)? Of course. Honestly, I don't even think anyone is arguing this. The argument (or at least one I was involved with) came from trying to state that average MCAT = school quality, there are no other selection factors, and that choosing a school based on average MCAT was a solid idea.
I know many people disagree with me but if you know how to look at them, match lists tell you even more about a school than MCAT/GPA/rotation sites can or ever could.
Yes.
I'm surprised by your attitude in this thread, but hope I sufficiently covered your points. I probably won't respond again, but feel free.
