Can non-trads get away with lower MCAT scores?

[dbeast]

As a nontrad myself, I DO NOT mean this in the pejorative sense, but do you guys think it's reasonable for adcom's to cut nontrad's some slack if their MCAT scores are slightly lower than standard premed students? I would think so... Having only one year of science classes is a massive disadvantage in my opinion, no matter how much the AAMC insists the knowledge required is basic. Obviously scores must still be competitive, but what do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[just one]

As a nontrad myself, I DO NOT mean this in the pejorative sense, but do you guys think it's reasonable for adcom's to cut nontrad's some slack if their MCAT scores are slightly lower than standard premed students? I would think so... Having only one year of science classes is a massive disadvantage in my opinion, no matter how much the AAMC insists the knowledge required is basic. Obviously scores must still be competitive, but what do you guys think?

No, as a nontrad myself, I don't believe I got any slack nor deserve any. The mcat is a sample of how well you might handle the medical school tests and board tests. Granted the sample may not be that accurate, but what else can they base their decisions on.

 

[NTF]

Why would they give non-trads more slack? Plus, plenty of "trad" applicants only do the pre-reqs and nothing else because they have non-science majors.

They don't give us slack. It's just that sometimes the extensive resumes that non-trads often have can offset a mediocre-ish score.

But don't count on any favors. Get the best score you can. Build the best application you can. It's about maximizing your options and chances.

 

[DrMidlife]

One way nontrads (and trads) are measured in the med school admissions process is by how well we jump through hoops without arguing about the hoops. Any expectation that the process will modify itself to accommodate us is a bad expectation.

 

[jl lin]

As a nontrad myself, I DO NOT mean this in the pejorative sense, but do you guys think it's reasonable for adcom's to cut nontrad's some slack if their MCAT scores are slightly lower than standard premed students? I would think so... Having only one year of science classes is a massive disadvantage in my opinion, no matter how much the AAMC insists the knowledge required is basic. Obviously scores must still be competitive, but what do you guys think?

Honestly, no. And really they shouldn't care so much if you are a non-trad versus anything else. You either present to them that you show a strong potential to do well in the academics and work, or you do not. I do, however, believe that interview "fit" perspectives will make a difference if say you have strong enough academics and such, but then there are others that seem to "click" on interview.

I see what you are getting at. . .it's a little like UR people. You could make that argument based on gender or age. But the political influence just isn't there for it. It is there for those that are a bit borderlinISH academically but fall under UR. I don't wish to debate that either, b/c I honestly see both sides of the debate.

Thing is, even though no one is supposed to discriminate on the bases of age, the political influence to stop it isn't as powerful as that which goes with UR. And I don't really think gender is that much of an issue anymore, but maybe somewhat.

Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just try to make as strong an academic and overall application as possible, and then I'd hope for the best.

 

[Namedmymember]

As a nontrad myself, I DO NOT mean this in the pejorative sense, but do you guys think it's reasonable for adcom's to cut nontrad's some slack if their MCAT scores are slightly lower than standard premed students? I would think so... Having only one year of science classes is a massive disadvantage in my opinion, no matter how much the AAMC insists the knowledge required is basic. Obviously scores must still be competitive, but what do you guys think?

Why do you only have one year of science? The prereqs take two years. In any case, there isn't a disadvantage. There is not much on the MCAT that isn't covered in the prereqs or can't be studied for in three months. Physiology is the only other class I would suggest you take to prepare for the test. And sign up for one of the MCAT prep classes if you're really worried about it. You're in the big leagues now! No excuses, just get it done!

 

[PharMed2016]

Why do you only have one year of science? The prereqs take two years. In any case, there isn't a disadvantage. There is not much on the MCAT that isn't covered in the prereqs or can't be studied for in three months. Physiology is the only other class I would suggest you take to prepare for the test. And sign up for one of the MCAT prep classes if you're really worried about it. You're in the big leagues now! No excuses, just get it done!

Well said. As for prep course... don't take Kaplan, it was a waste of money on my part.

 

[ShyRem]

You won't get any slack. On the contrary, you'll have to have a BETTER app to convince the adcom why they should take an older student who "won't give back as much as a younger student will in terms of work years."

Yeah, I know, not fair. Life ain't fair. But notice I didn't say "a better GPA" or "a better MCAT" I said "a better app".

 

[dbeast]

Why do you only have one year of science? The prereqs take two years. In any case, there isn't a disadvantage. There is not much on the MCAT that isn't covered in the prereqs or can't be studied for in three months. Physiology is the only other class I would suggest you take to prepare for the test. And sign up for one of the MCAT prep classes if you're really worried about it. You're in the big leagues now! No excuses, just get it done!

Our prereq's were done in one year followed by the MCAT followed by optional upper div stuff during the gap year... which of course begs the discussion of "don't take the MCAT before you're ready". I'm just saying I ran into one super gnarly upper level genetics passage on mine with 7 questions that I promise was nowhere in any of Kaplan's books (I know they suck but still... ).

I mostly made this thread because I've heard some of the younger kids applying complain about how all the nontrads are taking their spots and maybe the MCAT had to do with it. Or maybe we're just super bad ass... Or adcoms like work experience or something...

 

[Dianyla]

I think (and when I say "I think" I really mean "I am desperately hoping") that AdComs are more forgiving of a lower GPA, because this represents a lifetime of attempted coursework. We nontraditionals often have serious transcript stains from our younger years, and these don't get hidden by grade replacement/forgiveness if you're applying to MD schools. Bear in mind, I'm only talking about a low GPA caused by mostly old grades. Everything recent should show solid academic performance.

I don't think they'll cut us any slack on the MCAT. If anything, you want to really do well on the MCAT to show them that you're not too old and feeble to handle the rigors of med school.

 

[NontradICUdoc]

all applicants, be they non traditional or traditional are set to to the same standard. There is no advantage for work or life experience. You only get that from an MBA program.

If you did not do well on your MCAT, you wont be given any slack. If you did not do well in any of your courses because of work and family obligations, they will not give you any slack.

You cannot have two sets of standards for people going into the same school. The only advantage you have over a traditional medical student, is that you know how NOT to get involved with drama. You do not care to go bar hopping on Friday night because you been there done that. You are diligent with your money so you do not take out so much in loans and you have enough at the end of the year until the next semester.

Do not fall into a trap thinking that you will be given any extra points for being a lab tech or researcher for 10 years before going to medical school. In the end, you will still need to prove that you can do the work and finish the program.

 

[efex101]

No, non-trads compete with trads and may have to actually be "better" overall due to having more time on this earth to do stuff.

 

[Law2Doc]

No, non-trads compete with trads and may have to actually be "better" overall due to having more time on this earth to do stuff.

Agreed. You will get no slack with things like MCAT scores. You might get away with a lower GPA if it's remote and you have a recent track record of A's or a SMP to balance it out. But even then you sort of have to prove you can do the work, and a decent MCAT helps. In general, if you factor in the comparable MCAT and superior experience/ECs/advanced degrees/military service most nontrads show up with, it's a more impressive package required for a nontrad to get into med school. I wouldn't kid yourself that med schools are going to bend over backwards to take you as a nontrad. They will, however snap you up if you have the numbers AND bring a lot of interesting experience to the table. But you are never going to catch a break on the MCAT just because you have a few more miles on you.

 

[Law2Doc]

...Having only one year of science classes is a massive disadvantage in my opinion, no matter how much the AAMC insists the knowledge required is basic.

I don't really understand your notion in the above sentence. Tons of traditional age, nonscience majors go to med school with only one year of science, just like nontrads. That's plenty. It's all the material covered by the MCAT. If you take two semesters of bio, two of chem, two of orgo, and two of physics you have everything covered by that test. Don't kid yourself that the person who takes a few more semesters of bio has an advantage. If you look at MCAT scores on the AAMC site, bio majors as a group actually don't do so hot. More isn't better once you pass the "enough" marker. There is nothing on the MCAT that doesn't generally get covered by the prereqs, if reasonably well taught. And all of the nontrads who only took the prereqs and got in scored competitively. So no, you are expected to score well on the MCAT. Probably pays to try to score BETTER than your trad counterpart. They have no real advantage coming straight from undergrad. And even less being a science major (which not all are). There isn't a heck of a lot that you would take as the typical bio/biochem major that's on the MCAt and not covered by the basic sciences. I actually saw NOTHING on the MCAT that wasn't covered in the typical postbac program. Don't kid yourself, or worry that someone somehow has a systemic advantage. They don't.

 

[wrigley09]

If you take two semesters of bio, two of chem, two of orgo, and two of physics you have everything covered by that test. Don't kid yourself that the person who takes a few more semesters of bio has an advantage. If you look at MCAT scores on the AAMC site, bio majors as a group actually don't do so hot. More isn't better once you pass the "enough" marker. There is nothing on the MCAT that doesn't generally get covered by the prereqs, if reasonably well taught.

I disagree with this. Everything was covered for the PS section with the prereqs, but there are several topics that weren't covered in my intro bio classes that are on the mcat (biochem of muscles, skeletal system, endocrine system, immune system, lymphatic system)...I'm in A&P right now, and I can tell you that what we've covered so far with the skeletal system, muscles, nervous system etc has helped a LOT with the mcat passages. It's too late now since I'm taking the mcat on Thursday, but if I had it to do over again I'd take both A&Ps before the mcat.

And yes, I'm taking my prereqs at a top 25 public university with a strong science department. I think my prof didn't get to all of the things she was supposed to, because we spent too much time on plants and evolution. Maybe all of that stuff is supposed to be covered in detail, but at least in my case, it wasn't.

 

[Nasrudin]

I disagree with this. Everything was covered for the PS section with the prereqs, but there are several topics that weren't covered in my intro bio classes that are on the mcat (biochem of muscles, skeletal system, endocrine system, immune system, lymphatic system)...I'm in A&P right now, and I can tell you that what we've covered so far with the skeletal system, muscles, nervous system etc has helped a LOT with the mcat passages. It's too late now since I'm taking the mcat on Thursday, but if I had it to do over again I'd take both A&Ps before the mcat.

And yes, I'm taking my prereqs at a top 25 public university with a strong science department. I think my prof didn't get to all of the things she was supposed to, because we spent too much time on plants and evolution. Maybe all of that stuff is supposed to be covered in detail, but at least in my case, it wasn't.

Perhaps. But the biological background knowledge is not the emphasis for the MCAT in my experience. And gaps can be filled in best by review books rather than upper division course work.

Beyond a week or two reviewing any missed topics in your general bio background it's all the stuff of MCAT smoke and mirrors. Maybe that's why more isn't better. You'd benefit more from studying the MCAT test writing technique through practice and self-analysis.

I had tons of biology classes and while that helped placate some uneasiness with the material, that feeling was, in retrospect, misleading. What I should have emphasized for Bio was interpreting the language of scientific experimentation and data mapping. And the ability to read it quickly.

And so with excessive knowledge preparation. My bio performance was unremarkable.

 

[Law2Doc]

I disagree with this. Everything was covered for the PS section with the prereqs, but there are several topics that weren't covered in my intro bio classes that are on the mcat (biochem of muscles, skeletal system, endocrine system, immune system, lymphatic system)...I'm in A&P right now, and I can tell you that what we've covered so far with the skeletal system, muscles, nervous system etc has helped a LOT with the mcat passages. It's too late now since I'm taking the mcat on Thursday, but if I had it to do over again I'd take both A&Ps before the mcat.

And yes, I'm taking my prereqs at a top 25 public university with a strong science department. I think my prof didn't get to all of the things she was supposed to, because we spent too much time on plants and evolution. Maybe all of that stuff is supposed to be covered in detail, but at least in my case, it wasn't.

I only took the prereqs and saw nothing on the test that wasn't covered. Most of my non-sci peers had the same experience. If your program doesn't cover it all, it means the program is weak, not that the MCAT requires more than that, or that science majors are better off (except at weak programs). Doesn't really matter if the place is a "top 25 public university". Weak is weak. It's an objective measure not one based on prestige. MOST people have adequate coverage of all MCAT topics in their premed prereqs. The MCAT doesn't play "hide the ball" and every school knows what topics are fair game; most do you the favor of making their curriculum correspond to these topics. If they choose not to cover them, in favor of other things, they are doing you, and all premeds at your college, a disservice. That again doesn't mean they shouldn't cover them or that you need to take other courses. It means you need to pick up the slack in an MCAT review course if your program was weak and didn't hit all the topics. And it sounds like yours was. But most places aren't. And that includes most of the places that aren't even in the "top 25". So, like I said, if your program is weak, expect to have to pick up the spare in an MCAT course. If not, you should have solid coverage of all the topics that are fair game. Certainly no reason the person at most colleges with prereqs geared toward at least some portion of the class applying to med school is going to need anything else besides those prereqs.

 

[dbeast]

I only took the prereqs and saw nothing on the test that wasn't covered. Most of my non-sci peers had the same experience. If your program doesn't cover it all, it means the program is weak, not that the MCAT requires more than that, or that science majors are better off (except at weak programs). Doesn't really matter if the place is a "top 25 public university". Weak is weak. It's an objective measure not one based on prestige. MOST people have adequate coverage of all MCAT topics in their premed prereqs. The MCAT doesn't play "hide the ball" and every school knows what topics are fair game; most do you the favor of making their curriculum correspond to these topics. If they choose not to cover them, in favor of other things, they are doing you, and all premeds at your college, a disservice. That again doesn't mean they shouldn't cover them or that you need to take other courses. It means you need to pick up the slack in an MCAT review course if your program was weak and didn't hit all the topics. And it sounds like yours was. But most places aren't. And that includes most of the places that aren't even in the "top 25". So, like I said, if your program is weak, expect to have to pick up the spare in an MCAT course. If not, you should have solid coverage of all the topics that are fair game. Certainly no reason the person at most colleges with prereqs geared toward at least some portion of the class applying to med school is going to need anything else besides those prereqs.

In that case, consider yourself lucky because I think this is the exception, not the norm. I would've traded two semesters of intro bio for maybe cell bio and genetics based on my MCAT, and I'll bet people who took a different MCAT would prefer different prereq's. Maybe intro bio isn't the best preparation? That being said, because the passage gives away a lot of answers (that's the point), I'd argue the difference between a good score and an excellent score would be extra bio classes, and obviously nontrads need good, competitive scores, but maybe not excellent scores (like 32 versus 35). Still, consensus seems to disagree with this regardless, I was just curious... and maybe trying to be optimistic for us nontrads.

 

[wrigley09]

I hear you. I was just saying that if I had that experience at a huge school (huge in terms of number of students), then other people probably did too, and that was probably the point the OP was trying to make. Hell, we could've been in the same class for all I know My prof was new, and obviously didn't manage her time in class well. There's a TON of material that's supposed to be covered in Bio II, and my prof can't be the only one in the nation who has trouble getting through it all.

And, regardless of that, even if all of the material was covered in your intro class, you still benefit from spending a week on that material in an upper level class vs 20 minutes or whatever in an intro class. I took a prep class and sure, it helped, but having an actual professor explaining the concepts in detail makes sure that you're comfortable with the topic and whatever the mcat throws at you.

For the record, I agree with you and think that nontrads should not/are not given special treatment because of that. It's our choice as to whether we want to take those extra classes so that we have a deeper understanding of the material.

 

[Law2Doc]

In that case, consider yourself lucky because I think this is the exception, not the norm. ...

I know a ton of nonsci folks who did the same. Yes, It is the norm. Weak science programs do exist, and it pays to peruse your syllabus to determine what you are going to miss that might be MCAT worthy. And then take an MCAT course to "pick up the spare". That's the norm for those with weaker programs. It is very much not the norm to require more courses than the prereqs to do adequately on the MCAT. The MCAT is geared toward testing materials generally covered in the prereqs, and publishes lists of covered topics so that colleges can cover the appropriate material in their curricula.

it's not me who's lucky. It's the folks coming from colleges with weak science courses who are unlucky. And not the norm. Sorry.

 

[Law2Doc]

.... I would've traded two semesters of intro bio for maybe cell bio and genetics based on my MCAT, ....

Again, perfect example. cell bio and genetics are reasonably well covered in most college bio prereq courses. These topics are on every MCAT, and most schools include them in bio courses in great detail. You shouldn't need an upper level course for that. If you didn't get these topics, then a good review course ought to help. Still wouldn't take a whole upper level course to get the couple hours of lecture your course omitted on these.

 

[wrigley09]

Beyond a week or two reviewing any missed topics in your general bio background it's all the stuff of MCAT smoke and mirrors. Maybe that's why more isn't better. You'd benefit more from studying the MCAT test writing technique through practice and self-analysis.

I'm sure this is right. Like you said, knowing that I actually have a good grasp on the material the passage is talking about does wonders for calming me down when I see the passage instead of thinking, "crap, crap, what the heck IS this stuff" while I'm reading and psyching myself out. Whatever, I just want it to be OVER and I want to never have to look at or think about it ever again. That'd be a beautiful thing

 

[EdLongshanks]

Again, perfect example. cell bio and genetics are reasonably well covered in most college bio prereq courses. These topics are on every MCAT, and most schools include them in bio courses in great detail. You shouldn't need an upper level course for that. If you didn't get these topics, then a good review course ought to help. Still wouldn't take a whole upper level course to get the couple hours of lecture your course omitted on these.

If Biology courses adequately covered cell bio and genetics, then there wouldn't be upper-level courses named cell bio and genetics. Since I took both biology and genetics and cell bio, I know the difference between the intro level given in biology and the in-depth level given in the upper-level courses. Biology says that there are nuclear pores, Cell Bio tells you the different structures of the pores and has a separate chapter on importing and exporting materials from the nucleus.

 

[eablackwell]

I took all the prereqs before the MCAT and I have to say Bio was a beast on the MCAT. I always did very well in bio, and I did the entire EK bio 1001, the lecture book, and audio osmosis. I felt ready, I was scoring well on the AAMC practice MCATs and on the EK stuff. When I hit the test there were 2 passages that just kicked my ass, and a couple discretes (usually the easiest part) that I just stared at in confusion.

I almost voided the test because of it, but I didn't. PS and VR are never a shock for me (this was my 2nd time taking it), but BS always seems crazy.

 

[Law2Doc]

If Biology courses adequately covered cell bio and genetics, then there wouldn't be upper-level courses named cell bio and genetics. Since I took both biology and genetics and cell bio, I know the difference between the intro level given in biology and the in-depth level given in the upper-level courses. Biology says that there are nuclear pores, Cell Bio tells you the different structures of the pores and has a separate chapter on importing and exporting materials from the nucleus.

Whatever. I'm telling you that most of the nonsci folks I know didn't have the need for upper level courses thanks to our strong bio prereqs. Meaning we didn't take ANY upper level sciences in any subject and all did fine, including on the subjects you described. No other exposure to these topics other than the bio course and whatever they covered in an MCAT review course. So guess what, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that some prereq programs are strong and others are weak. Guess which one you seem to have had, if you felt the need to take additional, upper level courses. Not much more I can add to be clearer here. Your program is not the norm. The coverage of all the topics on the MCAT is the norm for a premed prereq, or else your school isn't doing its job. Most programs in the country seem to cover this material, which is why the AAMC tests on it, and the AAMC also releases the list of topics so that schools can ensure coverage. I don't know why your program isn't following the lead of everyone else -- could be that your new prof doesn't "get it" yet. But to suggest that folks not at your program will need to take upper levels is simply wrong. Good luck.

 

[Isoprop]

There has been a trend in the past few years that the Bio portion of the MCAT is getting more difficult. The AAMC designs the test so that the students fall on a bell-curve. Because a lot of MCAT test-takers are Bio majors, the Biology portion needs to be more challenging than the rest of the exam. The MCAT would be worthless if the majority of the test-takers could answer every question. However, they still need to be sure that students who have taken only 1 year of General Bio can still feasibly answer the question.

How they reconcile this is by introducing advanced biology topics which are adequately explained in the passage and ask questions that tests the fundamental biology that most students should have learned in general biology. It will be more difficult for the average Bio major to answer but still "answerable" by non-Bio majors. At the same time, this is why people feel they need to take extra classes like Cell Bio, Genetics, and Physiology to do well on the MCAT.

The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt.

And, addressing the original question, the people who have the biggest advantage IMO are the non-science majors who have learned and trained in college to quickly analyze non-science text (e.g. History, Philosophy, English majors). This is because Verbal counts as 1/3 of your total MCAT score while each science is less than that.

The MCAT is seen as the great equalizer. They use it to compare XYZ traditional student from an Ivy League to ABC non-trad who did a post-bacc at State University.

 

[Law2Doc]

There has been a trend in the past few years that the Bio portion of the MCAT is getting more difficult. The AAMC designs the test so that the students fall on a bell-curve. Because a lot of MCAT test-takers are Bio majors, the Biology portion needs to be more challenging than the rest of the exam. The MCAT would be worthless if the majority of the test-takers could answer every question. However, they still need to be sure that students who have taken only 1 year of General Bio can still feasibly answer the question.

How they reconcile this is by introducing advanced biology topics which are adequately explained in the passage and ask questions that tests the fundamental biology that most students should have learned in general biology. It will be more difficult for the average Bio major to answer but still "answerable" by non-Bio majors. At the same time, this is why people feel they need to take extra classes like Cell Bio, Genetics, and Physiology to do well on the MCAT.

The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt.

And, addressing the original question, the people who have the biggest advantage IMO are the non-science majors who have learned and trained in college to quickly analyze non-science text (e.g. History, Philosophy, English majors). This is because Verbal counts as 1/3 of your total MCAT score while each science is less than that.

The MCAT is seen as the great equalizer. They use it to compare XYZ traditional student from an Ivy League to ABC non-trad who did a post-bacc at State University.

Totally agree with this. As for whether upper levels "hurt". It does in the sense that many nontrads are doing postbacs and will have to spend a longer time taking courses if upper levels are the norm. Additionally, if you look at the AAMC statistics of who does poorly on the MCAT, bio majors tend to be toward the top of the list year after year. Part is because a very large portion of MCAT takers are bio majors, and you are incorporating a lot of premeds who wash out after the self selection in later years, part is because as you suggest, the verbal section is a big equalizer, not any of the sciences. And part is because after the basic prerequisite courses, the remaining bio classes don't add much to the equation. Either way, I agree, the prereqs generally are meant to be all you need. There are weaker offerings at some schools, such as the one other posters are describing, but fortunately that is not the norm.

 

[Dianyla]

How they reconcile this is by introducing advanced biology topics which are adequately explained in the passage and ask questions that tests the fundamental biology that most students should have learned in general biology. It will be more difficult for the average Bio major to answer but still "answerable" by non-Bio majors. At the same time, this is why people feel they need to take extra classes like Cell Bio, Genetics, and Physiology to do well on the MCAT.

The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt.

I completely agree with this.

 

[loik22]

the remaining bio classes don't add much to the equation.

In my experience, these remaining classes are what make the difference between a good and an excellent score. Case in point, there was a pure biochemistry question in my MCAT exam. Orgo or plain bio were of no help (I checked the index of my orgo an bio textbooks to verify this). So if you did not take these advanced classes, you were at a disadvantage. Hence, for someone with just the basic prereqs, the max BS score they can shoot for may be 13 instead of 15 (excluding chance obviously). There's no such discrimination in PS or VR.

 

[MCAT guy]

I don't really understand your notion in the above sentence. Tons of traditional age, nonscience majors go to med school with only one year of science, just like nontrads. That's plenty. It's all the material covered by the MCAT. If you take two semesters of bio, two of chem, two of orgo, and two of physics you have everything covered by that test. Don't kid yourself that the person who takes a few more semesters of bio has an advantage. If you look at MCAT scores on the AAMC site, bio majors as a group actually don't do so hot. More isn't better once you pass the "enough" marker. There is nothing on the MCAT that doesn't generally get covered by the prereqs, if reasonably well taught. And all of the nontrads who only took the prereqs and got in scored competitively. So no, you are expected to score well on the MCAT. Probably pays to try to score BETTER than your trad counterpart. They have no real advantage coming straight from undergrad. And even less being a science major (which not all are). There isn't a heck of a lot that you would take as the typical bio/biochem major that's on the MCAt and not covered by the basic sciences. I actually saw NOTHING on the MCAT that wasn't covered in the typical postbac program. Don't kid yourself, or worry that someone somehow has a systemic advantage. They don't.

I'm afraid you haven't been keeping up with the MCAT.

Ask anyone in the last 6 months who has scored 35+ if science classes above the pre-reqs has helped. You will hear an emphatic yes.

E.g. biochem/genetics/physiology/cell biology;

You'd be surprised. A couple of your assertions here are off with the current MCATs (scoring 12-13+ in science sections).

Can non-science people do well? Sure, but they catch up on weaknesses in their prep. The prep companies help fill in the gaps.

 

[TriagePreMed]

The only thing a non-trad might "get away with" is a low GPA during their undergraduate years IF they have a really high post-bacc GPA. Otherwise, don't hope to get special treatment.

 

[MCAT guy]

There has been a trend in the past few years that the Bio portion of the MCAT is getting more difficult. The AAMC designs the test so that the students fall on a bell-curve. Because a lot of MCAT test-takers are Bio majors, the Biology portion needs to be more challenging than the rest of the exam. The MCAT would be worthless if the majority of the test-takers could answer every question. However, they still need to be sure that students who have taken only 1 year of General Bio can still feasibly answer the question.

How they reconcile this is by introducing advanced biology topics which are adequately explained in the passage and ask questions that tests the fundamental biology that most students should have learned in general biology. It will be more difficult for the average Bio major to answer but still "answerable" by non-Bio majors. At the same time, this is why people feel they need to take extra classes like Cell Bio, Genetics, and Physiology to do well on the MCAT.

The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt.

And, addressing the original question, the people who have the biggest advantage IMO are the non-science majors who have learned and trained in college to quickly analyze non-science text (e.g. History, Philosophy, English majors). This is because Verbal counts as 1/3 of your total MCAT score while each science is less than that.

The MCAT is seen as the great equalizer. They use it to compare XYZ traditional student from an Ivy League to ABC non-trad who did a post-bacc at State University.

You make a few interesting points here. Your idea is that, " The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt."

Those of you who agree with this statement, I'm not quite sure if you've gone through recent MCAT material or exams? Or even talked to people who have scored highly (12-13+). Most everyone I've seen hit those higher scores has said, "there were a few questions I could have only answered with my upper-division ___ course."

I would respond to that by looking at VR. Yes, anyone CAN answer the questions of VR... but it favors those who can read difficult material so taking those humanities classes will likely help.

You see, humanities majors in general will score higher on the VR section than science majors... but why? It is evident that anyone CAN answer VR questions correctly, why in the world would they consistently score better? Well, because they are so familiar with the material and they use the VR skill set often. In timed conditions, it helps to be familiar with material.

In the same way, a BS section with lots of advanced genetics or cell bio will be better handled by a bio major. As you likely know, they drop hints in the passages that help answer questions (must incorporate the info). A person well versed in the topic will effortlessly pick up the pertinent info. A person with basic bio will have a much tougher time and will have to do it under the pressure of time, which could mean missing a few questions because of the lack of familiarity.

So yeah, of course anyone with Bio1/2 can answer the questions. But anyone can answer VR questions too and some people can't score above an 8 on VR. I would change that "doesn't hurt" to "very likely to help".

This is because Verbal counts as 1/3 of your total MCAT score while each science is less than that.

I guess. You could also argue that a bioengineering major will have improved skills in Bio/Ochem/Chem/Physics, so he has improved in 2/3 of the areas vs only 1/3. Plus Ochem and Chem do a bit of overlap for anyone who knows their chemistry (chem majors). The guy who scored a 40+ on the MCAT twice was a bioengineer I believe (41 and a 42?).

 

[MCAT guy]

In my experience, these remaining classes are what make the difference between a good and an excellent score. Case in point, there was a pure biochemistry question in my MCAT exam. Orgo or plain bio were of no help (I checked the index of my orgo an bio textbooks to verify this). So if you did not take these advanced classes, you were at a disadvantage. Hence, for someone with just the basic prereqs, the max BS score they can shoot for may be 13 instead of 15 (excluding chance obviously). There's no such discrimination in PS or VR.

I hadn't read your response before my post. Agreed 100%. The MCAT has evolved a bit in the last however many years.

 

[EdLongshanks]

Whatever. I'm telling you that most of the nonsci folks I know didn't have the need for upper level courses thanks to our strong bio prereqs. Meaning we didn't take ANY upper level sciences in any subject and all did fine, including on the subjects you described. No other exposure to these topics other than the bio course and whatever they covered in an MCAT review course. So guess what, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that some prereq programs are strong and others are weak. Guess which one you seem to have had, if you felt the need to take additional, upper level courses. Not much more I can add to be clearer here. Your program is not the norm. The coverage of all the topics on the MCAT is the norm for a premed prereq, or else your school isn't doing its job. Most programs in the country seem to cover this material, which is why the AAMC tests on it, and the AAMC also releases the list of topics so that schools can ensure coverage. I don't know why your program isn't following the lead of everyone else -- could be that your new prof doesn't "get it" yet. But to suggest that folks not at your program will need to take upper levels is simply wrong. Good luck.

Wow, you know way too much about my program based on way too little information.

 

[Isoprop]

You make a few interesting points here. Your idea is that, " The fact is, you ONLY need 1 year of Biology to do well. But those extra upper-div Bio classes won't hurt."

Those of you who agree with this statement, I'm not quite sure if you've gone through recent MCAT material or exams? Or even talked to people who have scored highly (12-13+). Most everyone I've seen hit those higher scores has said, "there were a few questions I could have only answered with my upper-division ___ course."

I would respond to that by looking at VR. Yes, anyone CAN answer the questions of VR... but it favors those who can read difficult material so taking those humanities classes will likely help.

You see, humanities majors in general will score higher on the VR section than science majors... but why? It is evident that anyone CAN answer VR questions correctly, why in the world would they consistently score better? Well, because they are so familiar with the material and they use the VR skill set often. In timed conditions, it helps to be familiar with material.

In the same way, a BS section with lots of advanced genetics or cell bio will be better handled by a bio major. As you likely know, they drop hints in the passages that help answer questions (must incorporate the info). A person well versed in the topic will effortlessly pick up the pertinent info. A person with basic bio will have a much tougher time and will have to do it under the pressure of time, which could mean missing a few questions because of the lack of familiarity.

So yeah, of course anyone with Bio1/2 can answer the questions. But anyone can answer VR questions too and some people can't score above an 8 on VR. I would change that "doesn't hurt" to "very likely to help".

I guess. You could also argue that a bioengineering major will have improved skills in Bio/Ochem/Chem/Physics, so he has improved in 2/3 of the areas vs only 1/3. Plus Ochem and Chem do a bit of overlap for anyone who knows their chemistry (chem majors). The guy who scored a 40+ on the MCAT twice was a bioengineer I believe (41 and a 42?).

Just noticed these replies and I felt compelled to respond to this one.

First, I did very well in B.S. and I have taken the exam recently. I did a lot of the practice offered by AAMC and by test prep companies. I'm also a Bio major. I have taken the upper-div bio classes (cell, molecular, physio, genetics).

Yes, they did help, but marginally. I felt adequately prepared by my 1 year of general bio taken at a local CC (with some review from a prep company). The extra classes helped me relearn the material faster, but I never thought on any practice test or on the actual exam that I would've been screwed if I didn't take XYZ bio class.

You can have a pure biochemistry PASSAGE on the MCAT, & you still can answer all the questions using basic, general biology or chemistry. A lot of it is process of elimination to get down to one answer. One passage I remember clearly was about terpenes, something NEVER covered in any bio/chem/ochem class. Yet every question could still be answered by just knowing the basics.

There was a poster on the MCAT forum a while ago that put it well: there's a difference between what knowledge you need to bring to the MCAT and what gets tested. All you need to bring is your basic science-- the questions and passages may be way beyond that, but you can still find the best answer using the basic science you brought with you.

Sure, taking the extra classes may or may not help when test day comes, but I can say with confidence that they are not necessary to do well. I still don't think it's "very likely to help" because we're talking about taking a full course to answer questions that may not even appear on a a subsection of a subtest that makes up your MCAT score.

 

[EdLongshanks]

Just noticed these replies and I felt compelled to respond to this one.

First, I did very well in B.S. and I have taken the exam recently. I did a lot of the practice offered by AAMC and by test prep companies. I'm also a Bio major. I have taken the upper-div bio classes (cell, molecular, physio, genetics).

Yes, they did help, but marginally. I felt adequately prepared by my 1 year of general bio taken at a local CC (with some review from a prep company). The extra classes helped me relearn the material faster, but I never thought on any practice test or on the actual exam that I would've been screwed if I didn't take XYZ bio class.

What is funny about this passage is his experience tells us that upper level biology helps, and then he proceeds to tell us that it doesn't.

I made a 33 on the MCAT. The reason that I scored so low is because my BS was only a 9, while my VR was very high. The reason that BS is so low is not because I didn't take basic biology (I scored a 98% in both of my first biology classes, and we didn't get much extra credit) nor was it my ability to read and assimilate passages quickly. I am very, very good at this.

But the problem is that I took my very first biology course 17 months before the test. I found out what DNA, lipids, proteins etc were then. My background in Biology is so poor that it takes me longer to understand the passage. If you say "sympathetic nervous system" versus "parasympathetic" it takes me another 2 minutes to pull that information up and scan the passage for enough information to figure out what those things are. When the passage mixes information about kidneys and pairs it up with the nervous system and then throws in a genetic problem about kidneys, brain function and bone density (they don't say bone, of course, they put it technically - another minute gone) then I just spent 6 minutes assimilating information that the biology major already has in his head.

If you think that upper level biology doesn't help on the MCAT BS section - a lot - then your neural functions need to be sent through your renal system.