"Complete Date?" "LizzyM?" Questions: (Un)necessary?

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Almost every MD-specific thread I watch, there are users who ask people invited for interviews these questions incessantly.

Maybe I am missing something, but what is the point of these questions? How will knowing when someone submitted their secondary or what their LM score is have any impact on one's own application?

Why ask individual users for their LM score when schools publish their entire entering class' statistical data as an aggregate on the MSAR or admit.org?

Interested to see what others think.

 

[wysdoc]

They are merely a way for waiting applicants to compare themselves to people who already got interviews
It’s perplexing to me too how this helps because whether their stats are lower or higher, they will still wonder “why not me?”
People are free not to answer

 

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

They are merely a way for waiting applicants to compare themselves to people who already got interviews
It’s perplexing to me too how this helps because whether their stats are lower or higher, they will still wonder “why not me?”
People are free not to answer

Right -- the problem is the LM comparison is too shallow for it to offer any significant value.

There's so much else that goes into an application that an LM score misses, so the comparisons aren't even worth making imo. No one ever asks: "clinical hours? "research pubs? "volunteering hours?" "compelling story?" "was your family poor or wealthy growing up?"

 

[MrM45]

I think it's the same reason when people hear that someone died and they ask "how old were they?" and "were they sick?". Your mind is trying to show you that you're okay. So if someone dies and they're old/sick, then it calms the person down; here, they hope to find out that the LM score is lower and/or the person submitted before them, and they convince themselves that they're okay.

However, when the other person has a higher LM or submits later than them and gets the interview, it creates this toxic premed anxiety.

My thoughts

 

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

I think it's the same reason when people hear that someone died and they ask "how old were they?" and "were they sick?". Your mind is trying to show you that you're okay. So if someone dies and they're old/sick, then it calms the person down; here, they hope to find out that the LM score is lower and/or the person submitted before them, and they convince themselves that they're okay.

However, when the other person has a higher LM or submits later than them and gets the interview, it creates this toxic premed anxiety.

My thoughts

🙋🙋Ooh ooh! Just world hypothesis! … sorry, mcat studying flashback

Good points though.

 

[Butalbusaur]

Neurosis lol

 

[Rachapkis]

Right -- the problem is the LM comparison is too shallow for it to offer any significant value.

There's so much else that goes into an application that an LM score misses, so the comparisons aren't even worth making imo. No one ever asks: "clinical hours? "research pubs? "volunteering hours?" "compelling story?" "was your family poor or wealthy growing up?"

I disagree--the LM score is a useful, albeit imperfectc, heuristic. It is no substitute for in depth analysis, but gives one a general sense of the applicant's strength.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I'm more critical of people asking for LM/WARS without sharing their own progress/numbers. Those of you who do, thank you, but it also underscores the fact that these indices provide some value.

 

[CDaFutureDocMan]

I think people want to decipher the pattern of the ever enigmatic medical school admissions process. Asking for the LM and the completion date is just gathering information to form an idea of what that pattern is. Ultimately, most of us are aware that searching for a pattern is futile because every school is different, and it doesn't really matter either way.

Comparison is the thief of joy after all.

 

[polymerization]

Outside of the answers you probably already know and are sidestepping for rhetorical effect, yes, a huge part of this behavior is for psychological reassurance. And also yes, the more you have to lose in not being accepted anywhere, the more "neurotic" and desperate that reassurance-seeking becomes. And finally, yes—this is every bit as consequential and potentially life-shattering as it sounds for a great deal of people (and these days, the circle of prosperity that shields people from the consequences of their own decisions is becoming smaller and making long-term goals like medicine more precarious to pursue).

Conversely, the more you have been shielded and propped up structurally through the invisible work of dozens of others, the more you assume the facility and comfort you've experienced is universal (or at least, that barriers are trivial or dramatized). And so even if your meaning isn't to say "I'm superior," it implies that you cannot empathize or understand why someone could be anxious in their position intellectually, even if you did not personally experience the challenges that make applying to medical school risky.

In that way, to be cool as a cucumber throughout this process is really just yet another way in which inequality manifests. It's not just that material resources or opportunity is unequally distributed, but even the felt, psychological sense of confidence (and more importantly, a lack of visceral fear) tends to be unfairly distributed too.

We have not all lost our minds. This is just...believe it or not...really hard. Maybe not for you personally, but certainly for most people.

 

[FairEver]

Right -- the problem is the LM comparison is too shallow for it to offer any significant value.

There's so much else that goes into an application that an LM score misses, so the comparisons aren't even worth making imo. No one ever asks: "clinical hours? "research pubs? "volunteering hours?" "compelling story?" "was your family poor or wealthy growing up?"

I think there is a bit of psychology involved here. In general, we value the things that are hard to achieve and really have to work hard for. LM score ( MCAT + GPA) is exactly that. It is not a joke to get 3.8+ over four years. No matter what, only 3% can score 520+ on the mcat and only 1% can get 524+. On the other hand, any 14+ years old can collect 1000s of volunteer hour hours. Any high school graduate can accrue 1000s of hours of clinical hours. It is not only a big deal, you don’t really learn much from it. So, you don’t value them that much. Regarding research publications, they are not entirely up to your talent. A lot of luck involved here. Getting an opportunity to work in a productive lab, the capability of the team, and in some cases knowing some influential people to add your name to the publications etc. So, naturally you won’t feel that they are meaningful achievements.

The medical school admissions in America used to give the most importance to MCAT and GPA up until 2010 or so. Then everything changed because politics began to intrude into the admission process and achieve predetermined outcome. All of a sudden, everyone started saying, “stats don’t matter”, “ stats are not everything “, “just because you are smart, you would not necessarily make a good physician “, “ just because person X has low stats, he wont make a good physician” etc. Some medical schools started to diminish the importance of stats I.e. only schools assigns only 15% weight for mcat and 15% for GPA. Some set lowest possible threshold for stats like 3.5 & 500 and picked applicants for the interview by lottery, some stopped considering mcat and gpa until after the interviews are done etc in order to protect themselves from legal troubles. So, just because medical schools reduced the importance of LM for their convenience, the students won’t feel the same way. They (especially those who achieved the most) know the true value and the importance of high stats.

 

[CDaFutureDocMan]

I think there is a bit of psychology involved here. In general, we value the things that are hard to achieve and really have to work hard for. LM score ( MCAT + GPA) is exactly that. It is not a joke to get 3.8+ over four years. No matter what, only 3% can score 520+ on the mcat and only 1% can get 524+. On the other hand, any 14+ years old can collect 1000s of volunteer hour hours. Any high school graduate can accrue 1000s of hours of clinical hours. It is not only a big deal, you don’t really learn much from it. So, you don’t value them that much. Regarding research publications, they are not entirely up to your talent. A lot of luck involved here. Getting an opportunity to work in a productive lab, the capability of the team, and in some cases knowing some influential people to add your name to the publications etc. So, naturally you won’t feel that they are meaningful achievements.

The medical school admissions in America used to give the most importance to MCAT and GPA up until 2010 or so. Then everything changed because politics began to intrude into the admission process and achieve predetermined outcome. All of a sudden, everyone started saying, “stats don’t matter”, “ stats are not everything “, “just because you are smart, you would not necessarily make a good physician “, “ just because person X has low stats, he wont make a good physician” etc. Some medical schools started to diminish the importance of stats I.e. only schools assigns only 15% weight for mcat and 15% for GPA. Some set lowest possible threshold for stats like 3.5 & 500 and picked applicants for the interview by lottery, some stopped considering mcat and gpa until after the interviews are done etc in order to protect themselves from legal troubles. So, just because medical schools reduced the importance of LM for their convenience, the students won’t feel the same way. They (especially those who achieved the most) know the true value and the importance of high stats.

How many times will you go on this same rant?

 

[Butalbusaur]

I think there is a bit of psychology involved here. In general, we value the things that are hard to achieve and really have to work hard for. LM score ( MCAT + GPA) is exactly that. It is not a joke to get 3.8+ over four years. No matter what, only 3% can score 520+ on the mcat and only 1% can get 524+. On the other hand, any 14+ years old can collect 1000s of volunteer hour hours. Any high school graduate can accrue 1000s of hours of clinical hours. It is not only a big deal, you don’t really learn much from it. So, you don’t value them that much. Regarding research publications, they are not entirely up to your talent. A lot of luck involved here. Getting an opportunity to work in a productive lab, the capability of the team, and in some cases knowing some influential people to add your name to the publications etc. So, naturally you won’t feel that they are meaningful achievements.

The medical school admissions in America used to give the most importance to MCAT and GPA up until 2010 or so. Then everything changed because politics began to intrude into the admission process and achieve predetermined outcome. All of a sudden, everyone started saying, “stats don’t matter”, “ stats are not everything “, “just because you are smart, you would not necessarily make a good physician “, “ just because person X has low stats, he wont make a good physician” etc. Some medical schools started to diminish the importance of stats I.e. only schools assigns only 15% weight for mcat and 15% for GPA. Some set lowest possible threshold for stats like 3.5 & 500 and picked applicants for the interview by lottery, some stopped considering mcat and gpa until after the interviews are done etc in order to protect themselves from legal troubles. So, just because medical schools reduced the importance of LM for their convenience, the students won’t feel the same way. They (especially those who achieved the most) know the true value and the importance of high stats.

W ragebait

 

[polymerization]

I think there is a bit of psychology involved here. In general, we value the things that are hard to achieve and really have to work hard for. LM score ( MCAT + GPA) is exactly that. It is not a joke to get 3.8+ over four years. No matter what, only 3% can score 520+ on the mcat and only 1% can get 524+. On the other hand, any 14+ years old can collect 1000s of volunteer hour hours. Any high school graduate can accrue 1000s of hours of clinical hours. It is not only a big deal, you don’t really learn much from it. So, you don’t value them that much. Regarding research publications, they are not entirely up to your talent. A lot of luck involved here. Getting an opportunity to work in a productive lab, the capability of the team, and in some cases knowing some influential people to add your name to the publications etc. So, naturally you won’t feel that they are meaningful achievements.

The medical school admissions in America used to give the most importance to MCAT and GPA up until 2010 or so. Then everything changed because politics began to intrude into the admission process and achieve predetermined outcome. All of a sudden, everyone started saying, “stats don’t matter”, “ stats are not everything “, “just because you are smart, you would not necessarily make a good physician “, “ just because person X has low stats, he wont make a good physician” etc. Some medical schools started to diminish the importance of stats I.e. only schools assigns only 15% weight for mcat and 15% for GPA. Some set lowest possible threshold for stats like 3.5 & 500 and picked applicants for the interview by lottery, some stopped considering mcat and gpa until after the interviews are done etc in order to protect themselves from legal troubles. So, just because medical schools reduced the importance of LM for their convenience, the students won’t feel the same way. They (especially those who achieved the most) know the true value and the importance of high stats.

You're such an interesting person. Many of us have already seen the less than stellar numbers that you've deleted from your post history. We both know you are far from the echelon of "truly deserving" (in your view) applicants that would benefit from the system you're proposing. Ironically, with every post, you demonstrate so clearly why admissions should never be based on metrics. What is so amusing is that it seems to go over your head completely every single time.

I feel sorry that you've found such emptiness in your experiences (or lack thereof). To go through all of this struggle and uncertainty just to build your entire identity around a pair of numbers...and falling quantifiably short of your own definition of "good enough?" Brutal.

Brava, Sisyphus. I must imagine you are happy.

 

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

Outside of the answers you probably already know and are sidestepping for rhetorical effect, yes, a huge part of this behavior is for psychological reassurance. And also yes, the more you have to lose in not being accepted anywhere, the more "neurotic" and desperate that reassurance-seeking becomes. And finally, yes—this is every bit as consequential and potentially life-shattering as it sounds for a great deal of people (and these days, the circle of prosperity that shields people from the consequences of their own decisions is becoming smaller and making long-term goals like medicine more precarious to pursue).

Conversely, the more you have been shielded and propped up structurally through the invisible work of dozens of others, the more you assume the facility and comfort you've experienced is universal (or at least, that barriers are trivial or dramatized). And so even if your meaning isn't to say "I'm superior," it implies that you cannot empathize or understand why someone could be anxious in their position intellectually, even if you did not personally experience the challenges that make applying to medical school risky.

In that way, to be cool as a cucumber throughout this process is really just yet another way in which inequality manifests. It's not just that material resources or opportunity is unequally distributed, but even the felt, psychological sense of confidence (and more importantly, a lack of visceral fear) tends to be unfairly distributed too.

We have not all lost our minds. This is just...believe it or not...really hard. Maybe not for you personally, but certainly for most people.

Amazing, very thought-provoking reply-- thank you!

Made me recognize that although in no way am I "cool as a cucumber" and I'm personally stressing a lot about interviews, I should consider the anxiety experienced by people who don't have any IIs left or just one.

If I'm stressed with 5... the people with zero must be panicking. I should be less critical of manifestations of that panic.

 

[sardinetoast]

Outside of the answers you probably already know and are sidestepping for rhetorical effect, yes, a huge part of this behavior is for psychological reassurance. And also yes, the more you have to lose in not being accepted anywhere, the more "neurotic" and desperate that reassurance-seeking becomes. And finally, yes—this is every bit as consequential and potentially life-shattering as it sounds for a great deal of people (and these days, the circle of prosperity that shields people from the consequences of their own decisions is becoming smaller and making long-term goals like medicine more precarious to pursue).

Conversely, the more you have been shielded and propped up structurally through the invisible work of dozens of others, the more you assume the facility and comfort you've experienced is universal (or at least, that barriers are trivial or dramatized). And so even if your meaning isn't to say "I'm superior," it implies that you cannot empathize or understand why someone could be anxious in their position intellectually, even if you did not personally experience the challenges that make applying to medical school risky.

In that way, to be cool as a cucumber throughout this process is really just yet another way in which inequality manifests. It's not just that material resources or opportunity is unequally distributed, but even the felt, psychological sense of confidence (and more importantly, a lack of visceral fear) tends to be unfairly distributed too.

We have not all lost our minds. This is just...believe it or not...really hard. Maybe not for you personally, but certainly for most people.

Your posts are always so thought provoking and I really enjoy reading them. As someone who has given up a LOT to be here, risked my stable job, spent all of my money and all of my free time over the past 4 years doing this with zero family support or connections to medicine...this process means everything to me. I reserve the right to be as neurotic about it as I want, and I understand why most people on this site and on reddit are neurotic as well...it's intense and it IS life altering. I'm grateful that I have IRL friends who have accepted the neuroticism/anxiety of this process and support me anyway lol

 

[rushingtide]

I lurk a lot here because I don’t really have much to contribute. But I find LM doesn’t work for those of us who had a not great undergraduate GPA (and it was not science related at all) and then spent 80 plus credit hours in the DIY postbacc (which was majority the sciences). So my LM could be as low as 60 but as high as 65. I choked on my MCAT and scored a 504. Whatever helps people through this process. The neuroticism isn’t healthy, so I have been going outside to touch grass a lot, go volunteer at the food bank, play with my dogs, and be with my husband.

I have zero MD II, and feel like I screwed up hard. But it is what it is.

 

[eigen]

My theory on this is that hard metrics (GPA, MCAT Scores, LM/WARS, etc.) take up a larger footprint in most applicants minds because it's a hard number and a single, simple metric.

Everything else requires nuance and experience to compare. Sure, you might have publications but how involved were you in them? What journal are they in? Sure, you have clinical experience- but there's a wide range of what that can represent.

It's also what leads applicants to look at hours (quantity) over the experience depth (quality) or experience length. As an example, I tell my students as they're preparing that working one weekend morning a month at a soup kitchen over 4-5 years won't have a supersized number of hours, but it shows a very different commitment than working there every day for 6 weeks in the spring you're applying.

When students are looking for comparisons (grasping at straws) or assurance, things that condense to numbers are comforting even if they're not overall that important. Relatedly, I think it's a trap a ton of applicants fall into when they place too much importance on numbers and not enough importance on narrative, arc, and competencies.

 

[dcubic]

I lurk a lot here because I don’t really have much to contribute. But I find LM doesn’t work for those of us who had a not great undergraduate GPA (and it was not science related at all) and then spent 80 plus credit hours in the DIY postbacc (which was majority the sciences). So my LM could be as low as 60 but as high as 65. I choked on my MCAT and scored a 504. Whatever helps people through this process. The neuroticism isn’t healthy, so I have been going outside to touch grass a lot, go volunteer at the food bank, play with my dogs, and be with my husband.

I have zero MD II, and feel like I screwed up hard. But it is what it is.

Same here 62-63 LM with a 502 pending retake score from September.

Despite majoring in probably one of the (if not the) hardest STEM major, I couldn't crack the MCAT even after doing all of UWorld and AAMC. I think it boils down to some people just not being good standardized test takers (though my SAT / ACT in HS were way better than the MCAT). At some point, it is what it is.

If med schools use that to stratify applicants, then so be it. But there's more to an applicant than one detrimental factor. A part of me wishes the MCAT was optional like CASPER or PREview, where it could only help an application out (a high MCAT can mitigate a lower GPA within reason like > 3.5 for example)

 

[eigen]

The issue is that the MCAT isn't the last standardized exam you will need to take as a doctor, and there is evidence showing correlations between MCAT scores and STEP exams.

That said, the guidance is usually that the correlation is strongest with below average MCAT scores and difficulty, with higher scores not necessarily leading to increased performance in areas that matter, especially with pass/fail exams.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

People want to know LM and submit date as they think it helps to predict when they may get an II or if they have a shot at a certain school. While it doesn't give the full picture, applicants want to have whatever information they can from a process that is mostly hidden between the closed doors of committee meetings. If these committees were more open and honest about what is discussed in there, applicants would worry less about these factors, but schools keep silent throughout the process and do not elaborate on why some students were chosen and some were not. However, I do understand why ADCOMS cannot express these reasons as the entire application process is so subjective where there are only marginal differences between applicant A and applicant B.

 

[polymerization]

I lurk a lot here because I don’t really have much to contribute. But I find LM doesn’t work for those of us who had a not great undergraduate GPA (and it was not science related at all) and then spent 80 plus credit hours in the DIY postbacc (which was majority the sciences). So my LM could be as low as 60 but as high as 65. I choked on my MCAT and scored a 504. Whatever helps people through this process. The neuroticism isn’t healthy, so I have been going outside to touch grass a lot, go volunteer at the food bank, play with my dogs, and be with my husband.

I have zero MD II, and feel like I screwed up hard. But it is what it is.

Same here 62-63 LM with a 502 pending retake score from September.

Despite majoring in probably one of the (if not the) hardest STEM major, I couldn't crack the MCAT even after doing all of UWorld and AAMC. I think it boils down to some people just not being good standardized test takers (though my SAT / ACT in HS were way better than the MCAT). At some point, it is what it is.

If med schools use that to stratify applicants, then so be it. But there's more to an applicant than one detrimental factor. A part of me wishes the MCAT was optional like CASPER or PREview, where it could only help an application out (a high MCAT can mitigate a lower GPA within reason like > 3.5 for example)

I'm interviewing at an Ivy this week with an LM 64/506. I threw up before my test, and shortly after I got back my score. I cried, I drank, I cuddled the cats, I whimpered in my partner's arms as I looked longingly over the waves beating against the shore of the beach, and then I got over it. It's a number. Sometimes your effort does 1:1 correlate with results. But for people like us, it kind of never has, so it was in a very morbid way, expected.

You have to have some perspective: the application is composed of more than just numbers. Assuming evaluators are looking for reasons to keep you "in," (as opposed to excluding you), that means you have all of these other categories aside from just those numbers to potentially compensate within that multifactorial selection process. Which ones make sense for you as a person (i.e., where you are likely to succeed given your interests and preferences) can be totally variable, and I think that's one way you can take back control not only of your activities, but of your entire story.

You can do this. I think the fundamental problem (at least for me) was that all of the life circumstances that led me to a position to need academic repair were still there when I came back to school. The harshest aspects had been addressed, but the reality for me was that the process of climbing this particular professional ladder required an unusual degree of economic stability. Had my partner not stepped in with his six-figure salary and supported me financially, you would all be seeing me trying to apply to nursing school at a community college part-time/nights and weekends. In fact, I'd already started taking prerequisites for an associate's degree.

And as an aside: there was never any shame in my game. We all have to do what we have to do to survive. I was absolutely willing to take an academic path that did not reflect my maximum intellectual capacity in order to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family. I never felt like I was doing something "less than." If I didn't get in and didn't have the wherewithal to reapply to medical school, I would happily take that path up again. It was never about the letters after my name or the position in the hierarchy for me... but given the opportunity to hold rank, I would use that station for good.

I hope that when you are successful, you will use your station for good, too. The world is made up of people who had their own dreams and inevitably fall short, often not by their own doing. Those people need a doctor that is willing to see them as endearing because they are imperfect...because they remind us...we didn't fall out of a coconut tree. We live in the context of everything that came before us. (IYKYK )

All of this to say... it's never too late to try to be better. And who knows, you could surprise yourself.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

Any high school graduate can accrue 1000s of hours of clinical hours. It is not only a big deal, you don’t really learn much from it. So, you don’t value them that much. Regarding research publications, they are not entirely up to your talent. A lot of luck involved here. Getting an opportunity to work in a productive lab, the capability of the team, and in some cases knowing some influential people to add your name to the publications etc. So, naturally you won’t feel that they are meaningful achievements.

One, you have asked other applicants about their hours in other threads, so there are already gaps in your logic here. Two, the best predictor for success in medical school is not GPA or MCAT scores, it is these real world scenarios where applicants learn to work in their communities and serve patients. You develop skills that are crucial to connection and empathy that cannot be taught from a textbook. Three, scientific literature is such an easy thing to test on. Ask the student what their role on the paper was, what they found, and what experiments they would do after. I cannot tell you the number of MD students I have had the displeasure of trying to work with that could not form a coherent thought on their "own paper". Admissions does not do nearly enough to actually weed this out, which may be the only thing I ever agree with you on.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

It was never about the letters after my name or the position in the hierarchy for me... but given the opportunity to hold rank, I would use that station for good.

I hope that when you are successful, you will use your station for good, too. The world is made up of people who had their own dreams and inevitably fall short, often not by their own doing. Those people need a doctor that is willing to see them as endearing because they are imperfect...because they remind us...we didn't fall out of a coconut tree. We live in the context of everything that came before us. (IYKYK )

All of this to say... it's never too late to try to be better. And who knows, you could surprise yourself.

As someone who has been beaten down by admissions time and time again, with the only real feedback I have ever been given was "I don't know why you didn't get in, your interview was great. I guess just keep trying and pushing.", this helped me remember why I am giving this a final shot. I am scared about what happens to the groups I have strived to support throughout my entire premed journey under this current government administration and want to help be the difference for them. Thank you for sharing this sentiment, it meant a lot to me.

 

[RockClimberMed]

some people just not being good standardized test takers

I have to roll my eyes whenever I hear this (which is way too often these days). Trust me those people who are "good at test taking" are most definitely just working harder. Medicine is a test. Better get good at taking tests now before you're 300k in debt with everything riding on a single exam.

 

[FairEver]

The issue is that the MCAT isn't the last standardized exam you will need to take as a doctor, and there is evidence showing correlations between MCAT scores and STEP exams.

That said, the guidance is usually that the correlation is strongest with below average MCAT scores and difficulty, with higher scores not necessarily leading to increased performance in areas that matter, especially with pass/fail exams.

In my humble opinion, when it comes to standardized tests, we as a nation should stop the practice of finding “correlation” with anything and what “predictive power/ability” they have etc. No other country in the world look at them in that way.

A very good score on any standardized test like SAT, ACT, MCAT, LST, GRE , USMLE etc means only one thing. They measure only how you performed in the past. They cannot predict future or anything because they don’t test you on things that you are going to do or learn in future. A very good standardized test score is determined by the following. Nothing else.

1. Do you have innate mental ability or natural intelligence ?
2. Did you go to school regularly ?
3. Did you take yourself seriously and paid attention in the class?
4. Did you learn and grasp all the concepts to the extent that you can apply them to solve problems?
5. Did you take the standardized test seriously and prepare for it?
6. Did you prepare in a meaningful way by doing plenty of practice questions and practice tests?

That’s all. If there is any correlation with anything, it is just coincidence. That’s all.

 

[wysdoc]

In my humble opinion, when it comes to standardized tests, we as a nation should stop the practice of finding “correlation” with anything and what “predictive power/ability” they have etc. No other country in the world look at them in that way.

A very good score on any standardized test like SAT, ACT, MCAT, LST, GRE , USMLE etc means only one thing. They measure only how you performed in the past. They cannot predict future or anything because they don’t test you on things that you are going to do or learn in future. A very good standardized test score is determined by the following. Nothing else.

1. Do you have innate mental ability or natural intelligence ?
2. Did you go to school regularly ?
3. Did you take yourself seriously and paid attention in the class?
4. Did you learn and grasp all the concepts to the extent that you can apply them to solve problems?
5. Did you take the standardized test seriously and prepare for it?
6. Did you prepare in a meaningful way by doing plenty of practice questions and practice tests?

That’s all. If there is any correlation with anything, it is just coincidence. That’s all.

@FairEver may I ask where you are in the medical school admissions process? Have you applied yet, are you a reapplicant, or are you still in college?
Your posts show a lot of outrage and theories.

 

[FairEver]

“Two, the best predictor for success in medical school is not GPA or MCAT scores”

Yes, of course , friend !! How they can predict anything? Nothing and no one can predict your future success. GPA is based on your performance in undergraduate courses, not medical school courses. MCAT score is based on how you did in undergraduate classes and your natural intelligence, only STEP exams can tell you how you did in medical school classes, not MCAT.

Your future success is determined by your natural intelligence and how focused you are in future and hard you work in future. Don’t you agree? You can have 4.0 and 528, but if you don’t go to classes in medical school and don’t study, you are going to flunk. That’s entirely on you, not your mcat score or undergraduate GPA.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

Your future success is determined by your natural intelligence and how focused you are in future and hard you work in future. Don’t you agree? You can have 4.0 and 528, but if you don’t go to classes in medical school and don’t study, you are going to flunk. That’s entirely on you, not your mcat score or undergraduate GPA.

So then individuals that have been shown to put in extra effort because they have to work full time to afford their education or basic needs but score lower than someone who did not should still have that effort taken into account, correct? Since, again, it is about their overall effort and how focused they are on their future. I would argue the single mother working a full time job to feed her child while studying who scores a 510 worked harder for that score than someone who had their basic needs met who studied full time and scored a 520.

 

[Anthodite]

“just because you are smart, you would not necessarily make a good physician “,

This is 100% true and you would know if you or your loved ones have needed to see some of the nations top specialists as a patient. Some dont listen to their patients nor believe them, and thats the worst thing for a patient who’s been desperate for treatment.

I’m so thankful theres essays, a volunteering requirement, interviews, and tests like Casper to filter out as many of those people as possible.

 

[eigen]

A very good score on any standardized test like SAT, ACT, MCAT, LST, GRE , USMLE etc means only one thing. They measure only how you performed in the past. They cannot predict future or anything because they don’t test you on things that you are going to do or learn in future. A very good standardized test score is determined by the following. Nothing else.

I've got to ask, have you ever taught a college or graduate level class? Because in my experience standardized tests measure only 5&6 on your list: effectively, they measure how well you do on that particular test.

Since you're arguing we shouldn't look at correlations outside the test, that makes standardized tests completely worthless in admissions, and I'd argue we should drop them entirely based on your arguments. Unless it predicts future performance in some way, why would we use it?

They (especially those who achieved the most) know the true value and the importance of high stats.

No, they want to think that stats measure things of importance and value, then they come on message boards and make specious arguments to back up that bias.

 

[Butalbusaur]

Guys, we have been having this debate every week for the past month 😭😭

 

[Anthodite]

Your future success is determined by your natural intelligence

Also can we please stop using words like “natural intelligence” it’s very eugenics-y