Continued validity of LizzyM scores?

[a_borgia]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How do you get 2% out of 4K from 80K?

Sorry, I was treating 98 as a median - so 2ish percent above and 2ish percent below. Should have been clear.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

There need not be an implication that a high scoring class can't be a diverse class. If 80k people take the MCAT, that's still 4k people in the top 2%, and it's impossible to claim that you cannot pick a diverse group of individuals out of four thousand students.

You're missing my point. I'm referring more to the uber-high scoring. I mean seriously, is a 96th percentile median compromising academic standards?

Also, who do you think has a more diverse class, *Wash U or UCSF?

*And by no means am I dissing Wash U. Again, I just don't think a school needs a 99th percentile median MCAT to be elite.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Guys, just a reminder that a 36 vs a 37 (etc) is meaningless in terms of competitiveness... you're comparing a 97th percentile score vs. a 98th percentile score... literally could be a single question difference. Just because Hopkins has a 36 and Harvard has a 37 doesn't make Hopkins any less competitive than Harvard.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Guys, just a reminder that a 36 vs a 37 (etc) is meaningless in terms of competitiveness... you're comparing a 97th percentile score vs. a 98th percentile score... literally could be a single question difference. Just because Hopkins has a 36 and Harvard has a 37 doesn't make Hopkins any less competitive than Harvard.

Oh I agree. But doesn't it work both ways? I mean 2-3 questions can make someone below Penn's and Wash U's median. And those schools seem to weigh those 2-3 questions more than others, right?

 

[Goro]

I always forget about Case and Mayo! Add them to the Airborne!

As to Cleveland Clinic, they're not in MSAR! They're technically allied with Case.

So I guess by your standards, Mayo would be part of the grunt infantry and of course I'd disagree 🙂 But that's cool -no pun intended

They're predictors of success in med school, and Step I. The ECs allow you to differentiate all the academic clones.

I once asked an ad com member here what caused them to emphasize stats even beyond the likes of Harvard and Hopkins and they said MCAT+GPA was what they'd found to be the best predictor, whatever that means...I'm guessing it means volunteering hours etc doesn't make for higher steps and more people going into competitive specialties / residencies

 

[WedgeDawg]

Oh I agree. But doesn't it work both ways? I mean 2-3 questions can make someone below average for Penn and Wash U. And those schools seem to weigh those 2-3 questions more than others, right?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who get into Penn and WashU with a 36 or a 37, just as there are plenty of people who get in with a 39 or a 40. Obviously the farther you are from the median in an inferior direction, the worse your chances, but without knowing standard deviation, we can't really provide too much meaningful speculation. It also doesn't have to be a correlative effect, it could be that the applicants that Penn and WashU admit just happen to have slightly higher MCAT scores. The variation in this tiny percentile range is likely to be huge, so we don't know what's random noise and what's actually meaningful without delving deeper into the statistics (which we don't have the data to do currently).

 

[a_borgia]

Oh I agree. But doesn't it work both ways? I mean 2-3 questions can make someone below average for Penn and Wash U. And those schools seem to weigh those 2-3 questions more than others, right?

Average does not mean a majority of applicants are necessarily at that score though - two points below the avg vs two points above can be the difference between (over a whole test) over a dozen questions. That seems very significant to me, especially in a medical context.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

They need to start posting the median

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who get into Penn and WashU with a 36 or a 37, just as there are plenty of people who get in with a 39 or a 40. Obviously the farther you are from the median in an inferior direction, the worse your chances, but without knowing standard deviation, we can't really provide too much meaningful speculation. It also doesn't have to be a correlative effect, it could be that the applicants that Penn and WashU admit just happen to have slightly higher MCAT scores. The variation in this tiny percentile range is likely to be huge, so we don't know what's random noise and what's actually meaningful without delving deeper into the statistics (which we don't have the data to do currently).

As usual, you raise some excellent points. I guess the cynical part of me likes to think that the deans at such schools actually strive to have the highest scores in the country.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Average does not mean a majority of applicants are necessarily at that score though - two points below the avg vs two points above can be the difference between (over a whole test) over a dozen questions. That seems very significant to me, especially in a medical context.

My mistake. I meant to say median.

 

[efle]

If there really were no difference in competitiveness between insignificant gaps like 36-38 then wouldn't you see a lot more fluctuation in medians between years? When you have n=2-300 accepted students leading to 36 vs 38 medians between tippy top schools I feel like that does indicate that for a subset of top schools every single point really counts

Same in ACT for undergrad, 32 vs 34 is certainly not significant in predicting whether the student will do well, but at some super stats oriented places like UChicago every point counts even in the miniscule tail end. Only way I can see how they'd consistently maintain higher numbers than peers.

 

[a_borgia]

If there really were no difference in competitiveness between insignificant gaps like 36-38 then wouldn't you see a lot more fluctuation in medians between years? When you have n=2-300 accepted students leading to 36 vs 38 medians between tippy top schools I feel like that does indicate that for a subset of top schools every single point really counts

Same in ACT for undergrad, 32 vs 34 is certainly not significant in predicting whether the student will do well, but at some super stats oriented places like UChicago every point counts even in the miniscule tail end. Only way I can see how they'd consistently maintain higher numbers than peers.

But there's literally hundreds of people who have a 36 on the ACT, and probably over thousand if you count 34+. Add in the SAT and you've got a HUGE applicant pool with ridiculous stats. The MCAT isn't really like that; there's only a handful of people who make the top score in any given year.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Only way I can see how they'd consistently maintain higher numbers than peers.

Again, I think this is a priority at certain schools. Oh and here's a tree frog: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_frog

 

[WedgeDawg]

If there really were no difference in competitiveness between insignificant gaps like 36-38 then wouldn't you see a lot more fluctuation in medians between years? When you have n=2-300 accepted students leading to 36 vs 38 medians between tippy top schools I feel like that does indicate that for a subset of top schools every single point really counts

Same in ACT for undergrad, 32 vs 34 is certainly not significant in predicting whether the student will do well, but at some super stats oriented places like UChicago every point counts even in the miniscule tail end. Only way I can see how they'd consistently maintain higher numbers than peers.

My comment was more directed towards the 36/37 schools. I would venture a guess that WashU, with a consistent 38 median, really cares more than others (though this is merely inference). Penn used to be 37 until MSAR 2015 (the one previous to this cycle), so it's anyone's guess. It could be that Penn is 37.5 median and Stanford is 37.4. I have no idea. Schools that used to have 36 medians are creeping to 37 (Northwestern, Cornell, NYU, Harvard, Michigan, etc) while some are staying static at 36 (Columbia, Hopkins, Pitt). Whether these are meaningful differences or not cannot be determined without more data, but I suspect that these are not.

 

[efle]

But there's literally hundreds of people who have a 36 on the ACT, and probably over thousand if you count 34+. Add in the SAT and you've got a HUGE applicant pool with ridiculous stats. The MCAT isn't really like that; there's only a handful of people who make the top score in any given year.

Relative to the class sizes of MD vs universities I'd be surprised to hear 36's came any cheaper than 38+

Oh and here's a tree frog: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_frog

y tho

My comment was more directed towards the 36/37 schools. I would venture a guess that WashU, with a consistent 38 median, really cares more than others (though this is merely inference). Penn used to be 37 until MSAR 2015 (the one previous to this cycle), so it's anyone's guess. It could be that Penn is 37.5 median and Stanford is 37.4. I have no idea. Schools that used to have 36 medians are creeping to 37 (Northwestern, Cornell, NYU, Harvard, Michigan, etc) while some are staying static at 36 (Columbia, Hopkins, Pitt). Whether these are meaningful differences or not cannot be determined without more data, but I suspect that these are not.

I feel like a 37.4 median would be tough to pull off 😛
The number creep across a couple decades for the handful of highest stats must be huge though. Class sizes stay similar while applicant pool keeps on growing, very well could see 100th percentile medians in a while...and WashU might be first! Though I heard they have a new admissions director so the number focus could actually decrease this cycle

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

y tho

Lol, just an attempt to channel your humor. 🙂 I think I failed though.

 

[efle]

*holds up spork*

 

[efle]

Nice avatar, I see someone has discovered Firefly. Watch Cowboy Bebop, you'll thank me later. One and only anime I could ever watch.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I do believe median MCAT stats are influenced by the goals of a school and not just "its the best of the best and the level of competition dicates we must have a 38 median". I remember gyngyn saying a few weeks ago UCSF if they wanted to could have a median MCAT that would put WASHU to shame if they wanted to. Yet its a 35 vs WASHU's 38. Every school has a mission; these median MCAT stats can sometimes show how much a school is willing to follow their mission. There is alot of lip service done on mission statements(and in admission in general) by schools but it takes ALOT for a school like UCSF to say we'll take this guy who only got a 32 on his MCAT who fits our mission incredibly well over this person with a 37 who simply fits it well and seems to be what we are looking for. Not all schools are willing to make that sacrfice, hell many aren't. A school like UCSF has shown a willingness to do that. So has Duke. So has Mayo. It's simply about what a school values. You can gurantee the discussion WASHU has about 2 applicants is different for one who has a 33 and one who has a 37. I'm not sure it always is as different at a school like Mayo.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Kudos to UCSF....and kudos to all schools self-confident enough to take who they consider to be the best people. I can't imagine that Harvard loses a second of sleep worrying about what the median is at Wash U or Penn. Wash U is an incredible school, but the entire school, not just the med school, seems extremely image and rankings conscious. That seems clear just applying there as an undergrad.

How many 40+ MCAT scorers are there per year? A few hundred? Clearly the ones among that group who are equal or better than non-40 applicants on the other qualities considered in making for a good med student and physician are the true pick of the litter. But there's the rub. There will be applicants with scores high enough, whether that is 32 or 34 or 36 that they should be chosen over higher stats folks IF they rate higher on character, altruism and other factors. Don't we all know someone who is absolutely brilliant but a little bit clueness, especially in terms of social intelligence? As for the ones who truly "have it all," you just have to tip your cap and hope there is still room for you at the party.

 

[efle]

I think the undergrad is especially bad about it, same with Vandy. Makes sense though, as they've only been really great schools for a couple decades. Schools in the Ivy league, Duke, Notre Dame, Hopkins, CMU etc have been famous names for a long time, while Vandy and Wustl have to heavily advertise "me too! Youve never heard of us but our student bodies are similar look!" and what better way to do that than ranks?

 

[GrapesofRath]

I think the undergrad is especially bad about it, same with Vandy. Makes sense though, as they've only been really great schools for a couple decades. Schools in the Ivy league, Duke, Notre Dame, Hopkins, CMU etc have been famous names for a long time, while Vandy and Wustl have to heavily advertise "me too! Youve never heard of us but our student bodies are similar look!" and what better way to do that than ranks?

Good ole' WASHU is rather famous for the little games and tricks they do to nab the highest undergrad ranking possible. Waitlisting thousands and thousands of people. Being attracted to top SAT scores. Not being need blind(at least back in my days of applying). Giving bonus points to those who visit their school. Creating absurd BS/professional degree type programs where you have requirements such as for the MD maintaing a 3.8 and getting a 36 on the MCAT. Everything possible to get the highest yield possible amongst other things. I have no idea how their medical school admissions operates although the fact they are so infatuated with top MCAT scores says they might again appear about their perception a good bit.

 

[Nietzschelover]

I think the undergrad is especially bad about it, same with Vandy. Makes sense though, as they've only been really great schools for a couple decades. Schools in the Ivy league, Duke, Notre Dame, Hopkins, CMU etc have been famous names for a long time, while Vandy and Wustl have to heavily advertise "me too! Youve never heard of us but our student bodies are similar look!" and what better way to do that than ranks?

I tend to think of Wash U and Vandy together too, along with Rice, but I don't think the latter two are quite as bad. In some ways, I guess one has to respect what Wash U has done. In contrast to a place like Reed, they have very openly made rising in the rankings and managing perceptions top priorities. It's worked. The problem for Wash U and also Vandy and Rice is that they've reached a point (I'm thinking mainly undergrad on this) where they are now up against a barrier. It's tough to get any higher, even with a super-conscious effort to do so.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Good ole' WASHU is rather famous for the little games and tricks they do to nab the highest undergrad ranking possible. Waitlisting thousands and thousands of people. Being attracted to top SAT scores. Not being need blind(at least back in my days of applying). Giving bonus points to those who visit their school. Creating absurd BS/professional degree type programs where you have requirements such as for the MD maintaing a 3.8 and getting a 36 on the MCAT. Everything possible to get the highest yield possible amongst other things. I have no idea how their medical school admissions operates although the fact they are so infatuated with top MCAT scores says they might again appear about their perception a good bit.

Not long ago, Wash U med actually advertised that it was uber-selective on its admissions site. It was something along the lines of, "we're the most selective school..." They're clearly not shy about this stuff.

 

[efle]

Good ole' WASHU is rather famous for the little games and tricks they do to nab the highest undergrad ranking possible. Waitlisting thousands and thousands of people. Being attracted to top SAT scores. Not being need blind(at least back in my days of applying). Giving bonus points to those who visit their school. Creating absurd BS/professional degree type programs where you have requirements such as for the MD maintaing a 3.8 and getting a 36 on the MCAT. Everything possible to get the highest yield possible amongst other things. I have no idea how their medical school admissions operates although the fact they are so infatuated with top MCAT scores says they might again appear about their perception a good bit.

I've heard this too, they still are need aware (the only top 20 that is) and have an extremely low number of Pell recipients compared to other schools. The numbers emphasis is pretty crazy, both them and Vandy have SATs above the majority of the higher-ranked schools. I wonder how many other schools are following suit and planning to put big emphasis on driving up their numbers to climb ranks

I tend to think of Wash U and Vandy together too, along with Rice, but I don't think the latter two are quite as bad. In some ways, I guess one has to respect what Wash U has done. In contrast to a place like Reed, they have very openly made rising in the rankings and managing perceptions top priorities. It's worked. The problem for Wash U and also Vandy and Rice is that they've reached a point (I'm thinking mainly undergrad on this) where they are now up against a barrier. It's tough to get any higher, even with a super-conscious effort to do so.

I think the wall they hit is due to the heavy weight on reputation in the algorithm and the fact that they have zero recognition compared to the likes of Ivy, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Hopkins etc. Will be interesting to see if they manage to start a positive feedback loop where they become better regarded by high school counselors over years of high ranking, allowing them to climb a couple more spots in that same ranking

There really ought to be a study done on the effects that online rankings / test score and accept rate lists have on college behaviors. Some interesting stuff for sure, like all the scandals with lying about SAT scores (looking at you Claremont McKenna. Shame *rings bell*.) I would read the **** out of that paper

 

[Nietzschelover]

I've heard this too, they still are need aware (the only top 20 that is) and have an extremely low number of Pell recipients compared to other schools. The numbers emphasis is pretty crazy, both them and Vandy have SATs above the majority of the higher-ranked schools. I wonder how many other schools are following suit and planning to put big emphasis on driving up their numbers to climb ranks


I think the wall they hit is due to the heavy weight on reputation in the algorithm and the fact that they have zero recognition compared to the likes of Ivy, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Hopkins etc. Will be interesting to see if they manage to start a positive feedback loop where they become better regarded by high school counselors over years of high ranking, allowing them to climb a couple more spots in that same ranking

There really ought to be a study done on the effects that online rankings / test score and accept rate lists have on college behaviors. Some interesting stuff for sure, like all the scandals with lying about SAT scores (looking at you Claremont McKenna. Shame *rings bell*.) I would read the **** out of that paper

I think it's a really fine line. Wash U became a super-hot school, but the tactics also started turning people sour. They bullied their way in and no one is going to bully them out, but part of their rise was folks loving the idea of the superstar underdog. That would be an interesting paper. Colby on the LAC has been similar but so far is still hot without much peripheral negativity.

I see Vandy a little differently. It's been the considered the 2nd best school in the South (to Duke) for many, many years, with Davidson and I guess Washington&Lee in the mix from the LAC end, and Emory, UVA, William and Mary, and UNC in the discussion.

 

[efle]

I think it's a really fine line. Wash U became a super-hot school, but the tactics also started turning people sour. They bullied their way in and no one is going to bully them out, but part of their rise was folks loving the idea of the superstar underdog. That would be an interesting paper. Colby on the LAC has been similar but so far is still hot without much peripheral negativity.

I see Vandy a little differently. It's been the considered the 2nd best school in the South (to Duke) for many, many years, with Davidson and I guess Washington&Lee in the mix from the LAC end, and Emory, UVA, William and Mary, and UNC in the discussion.

Vandy had nowhere near Ivy or Duke metrics even as recently as 10-15 years ago! I thought they were a similar story. Probably a regional thing, like nobody outside California has ever heard of Harvey Mudd