Correlations Between MCAT & GPA

[IndianVercetti]

Alright, I'm halfway through my sophomore year, and just starting to prepare for the MCAT. As I was browsing a lot of the threads on here, I'm seeing a lot of variation between peoples' GPAs and MCAT scores. Most notably, there are quite a few people who have average/below average GPAs, but managed to get 33+ on their MCAT.

I had initially thought this was probably because these people had weak 1st semesters in college, and then had a high GPAs to follow, but this can't be the case for all of them.

My question is, if one really never had a fundamental understanding of a subject when they took the class, is it still possible to earn a 33+ on the MCAT?

(btw, I have a 3.8 right now, but am only asking this because I feel I have a lot of gaps in my understanding of Organic Chemistry/Gen Chem)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[chessodoc]

Alright, I'm halfway through my sophomore year, and just starting to prepare for the MCAT. As I was browsing a lot of the threads on here, I'm seeing a lot of variation between peoples' GPAs and MCAT scores. Most notably, there are quite a few people who have average/below average GPAs, but managed to get 33+ on their MCAT.

I had initially thought this was probably because these people had weak 1st semesters in college, and then had a high GPAs to follow, but this can't be the case for all of them.

My question is, if one really never had a fundamental understanding of a subject when they took the class, is it still possible to earn a 33+ on the MCAT?

(btw, I have a 3.8 right now, but am only asking this because I feel I have a lot of gaps in my understanding of Organic Chemistry/Gen Chem)

It depends on how difficult the class is...and how tough the competition is. I got Bs in physics but a 14 in PS, Cs/B- in Orgo/Bio and an 11 in BS, but then again I tried to take the toughest sections (an incredibly stupid idea).

 

[IndianVercetti]

It depends on how difficult the class is...and how tough the competition is. I got Bs in physics but a 14 in PS, Cs/B- in Orgo/Bio and an 11 in BS, but then again I tried to take the toughest sections (an incredibly stupid idea).

Wow, congrats. You must have really worked hard for the MCAT.

 

[armybound]

The MCAT is about basic science concepts and critical thinking. You can nearly fail classes but still learn the basics enough to be successful on the MCAT if you're a critical thinker.

Most of my 33 points came from verbal reasoning, and I still hardly know any chemistry or physics.

 

[fahimaz7]

No correlation here. I've seen 4.0's with a 21 and I've seen 2.9's with 39s.

Study and get'er done.

 

[WashMe]

it is possible to pass a class without learning anything, then learn it all for the MCAT. It would take hard work though...

I tend to believe that MCAT is sort of like "science IQ" whereas GPA is more about hard work and dedication.

I think most would agree that high GPA/ low MCAT paints a picture of an extremely hard worker with average science intuition. Low GPA/ high MCAT suggests a science genius lacking in work ethic. These are generalizations, so don't take offense people. Both scenarios happen often.

 

[Altruist]

Alright, I'm halfway through my sophomore year, and just starting to prepare for the MCAT. As I was browsing a lot of the threads on here, I'm seeing a lot of variation between peoples' GPAs and MCAT scores. Most notably, there are quite a few people who have average/below average GPAs, but managed to get 33+ on their MCAT.

In general, I assume that GPA and MCAT performance correlate to some degree, but if it were perfectly correlated, the MCAT would be worthless.

As one of the outliers, I can only say that my GPA was terrible when I wasn't putting forth much effort in my classes, and my GPA was great when I was. GPA, to me, measures the effort you're putting into your classes, rather than the knowledge you're gaining.

For the MCAT, I was fully motivated, at least partly because I had to do well to be a serious candidate for med school. Plus, from the Iowa Basics test on up, I've always done pretty well on multiple guess exams, so that probably helped me.

The key thing is the effort you put in. Good luck to you!

[edit]Re: OnlyNeedOneYes, you're right on, from my experience. I interviewed last year before I'd improved my GPA (to some degree, anyway) and that seemed to be at least one adcom's opinion of me, from the file review I did after the fact. One of the notes read, "Sure, he's smart, but will he show up to class?"

 

[IndianVercetti]

Thanks a lot for the responses guys!

 

[zpiff]

My thoughts are that SDN is not a representative sample.

I feel like a lot of the people here might not have done as well in classes at the beginning of undergrad but picked up their game later.

This results in the sort of lower (compared to MCAT) GPA and higher MCAT scores.

 

[WashMe]

In general, I assume that GPA and MCAT performance correlate to some degree, but if it were perfectly correlated, the MCAT would be worthless.

As one of the outliers, I can only say that my GPA was terrible when I wasn't putting forth much effort in my classes, and my GPA was great when I was. GPA, to me, measures the effort you're putting into your classes, rather than the knowledge you're gaining.

For the MCAT, I was fully motivated, at least partly because I had to do well to be a serious candidate for med school. Plus, from the Iowa Basics test on up, I've always done pretty well on multiple guess exams, so that probably helped me.

The key thing is the effort you put in. Good luck to you!

[edit]Re: OnlyNeedOneYes, you're right on, from my experience. I interviewed last year before I'd improved my GPA (to some degree, anyway) and that seemed to be at least one adcom's opinion of me, from the file review I did after the fact. One of the notes read, "Sure, he's smart, but will he show up to class?"

Congratulations on getting accepted this year!

 

[WashMe]

My thoughts are that SDN is not a representative sample.

I feel like a lot of the people here might not have done as well in classes at the beginning of undergrad but picked up their game later.

This results in the sort of lower (compared to MCAT) GPA and higher MCAT scores.

true. but... the MCAT covers stuff that pre-med majors should have covered completely in the first 2 years of college, thus the GPA for relevant classes (those covered on the MCAT) could be low for someone who ends up w/ a high MCAT (thus the person looks like, but isn't necessarily, a slacker). boosting your GPA in later years makes it look like you were a slacker but aren't anymore. that's a good thing.

 

[efitzpat]

Grades are tough to gauge a person's performance by - thats why we have the MCAT to standardize things. I knew O-Chem so well. I understood everything and even tutored other people, but for some reason I just couldn't break a B with the curve. Also, for one semester of Physics I had a brand new teacher. She broke several university policies, the average was something like a 40 or 50 for each test, and she used calculus in a algebra based physics class (physics for the life sciences, oh yeah, i totally took the "easy" way out because i hated calc). So those really add up. Plus sometimes there are outside issues that may prevent a student from really focusing on a class during the semester, so even though they may not have a difficult time understanding concepts, they still can't perform in the class due to lack of time, distractions, etc. I did nothing but work and study for the MCAT one summer and it paid off.

 

[dancindoc85]

As pre-meds, we are so used to thinking that anything less than an A means you weren't able to master a certain subject. I think this is untrue for many reasons. At my undergrad university, receiving even a B+ in many premed classes was difficult to do. Getting solid B+'s would give you a GPA of 3.3... pretty noncompetitive for most MD programs!! Additionally, grades are completely subjective on so many levels; that is why the MCAT is a great equalizer among students. Smarter students may not have been able to pull all A's because they did not have enough time to study, were dealing with a sickness or family crisis, or maybe weren't able to go to office hours all the time and suck up to the TAs to get better lab grades! And the grading for every class is different... Some professors will calculate your grade based on only 3 big exams, while other will give you tons of homework and credit for class participation, etc. Students with "low" GPAs (3.0-3.3) and "high" MCATS (33+) probably have a lot of factors contributing to both of these statistics.

 

[202781]

Alright, I'm halfway through my sophomore year, and just starting to prepare for the MCAT. As I was browsing a lot of the threads on here, I'm seeing a lot of variation between peoples' GPAs and MCAT scores. Most notably, there are quite a few people who have average/below average GPAs, but managed to get 33+ on their MCAT.

I had initially thought this was probably because these people had weak 1st semesters in college, and then had a high GPAs to follow, but this can't be the case for all of them.

My question is, if one really never had a fundamental understanding of a subject when they took the class, is it still possible to earn a 33+ on the MCAT?

(btw, I have a 3.8 right now, but am only asking this because I feel I have a lot of gaps in my understanding of Organic Chemistry/Gen Chem)

Ohh sure you will be fine. I did not give two squirts of... uhh... j u i c e... the first time that I took gen chem. Then I just studied the ExamKrackers book (gen chem book) for like a week straight and learned everything I needed to know

 

[starfishprime]

For me, it is a question of knowledge retention and critical thinking. I was a lazy *****, and pulled solid B's through all of bio and much of physics. However, come MCAT time, I still have near-perfect conceptual recall of the 85-88% of the material I knew to begin with. Since the MCAT is less rigorous than, say, Molecular Genetics, I was able to manage 15P, 15B, 11V with relative ease. In that regard, my 3.4 GPA isn't very well correlated with my 41. As far as I'm concerned, the MCAT score says something far more interesting than GPA - other people (who don't have 3.95, 28 stats), such as scientists and statisticians, tend to agree.

 

[cyclin M]

For me, it is a question of knowledge retention and critical thinking. I was a lazy *****, and pulled solid B's through all of bio and much of physics. However, come MCAT time, I still have near-perfect conceptual recall of the 85-88% of the material I knew to begin with. Since the MCAT is less rigorous than, say, Molecular Genetics, I was able to manage 15P, 15B, 11V with relative ease. In that regard, my 3.4 GPA isn't very well correlated with my 41. As far as I'm concerned, the MCAT score says something far more interesting than GPA - other people (who don't have 3.95, 28 stats), such as scientists and statisticians, tend to agree.

Yes, the MCAT is the great equalizer.

 

[IndianVercetti]

For me, it is a question of knowledge retention and critical thinking. I was a lazy *****, and pulled solid B's through all of bio and much of physics. However, come MCAT time, I still have near-perfect conceptual recall of the 85-88% of the material I knew to begin with. Since the MCAT is less rigorous than, say, Molecular Genetics, I was able to manage 15P, 15B, 11V with relative ease. In that regard, my 3.4 GPA isn't very well correlated with my 41. As far as I'm concerned, the MCAT score says something far more interesting than GPA - other people (who don't have 3.95, 28 stats), such as scientists and statisticians, tend to agree.

Way to go with the 41!

 

[kevdubs]

I found that the knowledge required for the MCAT was so rudimentary that the vast majority of things learned in college was unnecessary. The only thing upper level science courses were good for, (as far as taking the MCAT goes), was learning how to take difficult tests effectively under a lot of pressure. The actual content for physics, chemistry and reading was all basically highschool level, and organic and bio was just intro level college. Basically just get a good study book and re-memorize the basic things (ie physics equations, reactions etc,) be a good test taker (know how to think), and its not too bad.
In other words, i dont think there is much of a correlation between MCAT and GPA ability. Both for the most part just require effort and a baseline intelligence. Some people are just lazy at different times.

 

[fizzle]

My question is, if one really never had a fundamental understanding of a subject when they took the class, is it still possible to earn a 33+ on the MCAT?

(btw, I have a 3.8 right now, but am only asking this because I feel I have a lot of gaps in my understanding of Organic Chemistry/Gen Chem)

It is very possible to get a B or lower even with a fundamental understanding of the subject (and vice versa). My transcript has a bunch of B's for my biology courses and A's for my engineering courses, simply because grasping the fundamental concept behind systems was easy for me, but I did not bother memorizing all the smaller details that kind of determine your success in biology courses.

 

[starfishprime]

Yes, the MCAT is the great equalizer.

Unfortunately, that has not yet been borne out by evidence. Though, maybe I just have a really abrasive personality.

 

[Oceaner]

No correlation here. I've seen 4.0's with a 21 and I've seen 2.9's with 39s.

Study and get'er done.

Yours truly.

They're different beasts. I took the hard courses at the same time, drove my GPA to the ****s. As well if I didn't like a course (instructor, format, etc) I just did really bad in it... messed up psychology. I know other people who completely strategized their high GPAs, but then did really ****ty in the MCATs because they couldn't go to its office hours and suck up.

I declare: I am not bitter.

 

[tdittyx2x3]

I am living proof that the low GPA'ers are just slackers.

 

[What up doc]

no correlation...MCAT tests how well you can sit and concentrate for 5:30 hrs and apply fundamental critical thinking skills to never before seen question sets...i also would like to add that doing extremely well on the MCAT (35+) has a good deal to do with luck. i think anyone who can consistently score a 32+ score is very capable of scoring extremely well on the MCAT, and does not need to have a super-in depth understanding of the material

a good deal of variation of scores on the mcat has to do with the verbal score a well, which in my opinion has absolutely ZIP ZERO correlation with GPA. i feel like a 10 is very solid and strong verbal score. but if you can crack a 12 or a 13, it usually means you will be scoring a 35+ score, and scoring a 13 on verbal def has to do with luck

 

[shnuffles]

There is a difference, but having a solid understanding of the basic sciences is essential for success on the mcat beast. I had the high gpa/low mcat problem to begin with, but rectified that eventually(to some extent...no 41 here). Taking the mcat was one of the most humbling experiences I have had...I work my a** off and generally "succeed" because of that...but this test was an entirely different story. PM me for details if interested.

 

[cyclin M]

Unfortunately, that has not yet been borne out by evidence. Though, maybe I just have a really abrasive personality.

Actually by definition it's a standardized exam. Hence, great equalizer.

 

[What up doc]

For me, it is a question of knowledge retention and critical thinking. I was a lazy *****, and pulled solid B's through all of bio and much of physics. However, come MCAT time, I still have near-perfect conceptual recall of the 85-88% of the material I knew to begin with. Since the MCAT is less rigorous than, say, Molecular Genetics, I was able to manage 15P, 15B, 11V with relative ease. In that regard, my 3.4 GPA isn't very well correlated with my 41. As far as I'm concerned, the MCAT score says something far more interesting than GPA - other people (who don't have 3.95, 28 stats), such as scientists and statisticians, tend to agree.

go ahead and claim it was a mistake, but in another post, you claimed that you scored a 40S. but now you say you scored a 41? c'mon homie, step your game up. why come on an anonymous forum and make up a fake persona for yourself. is it way of pretending to be something that you know you can't? a 41 mcat score is like 99.2 percentile which means out of ~70,000 test takers, only 140 score this high. and about 120 of them happen to post on SDN lame-o



lol, this why you should take everything you hear on SDN with a HUGE grain of salt...half the mo fo's on this website are lying out their @SS in my opinion. all these 3.9, 39's with no interviews are prolly more like 3.65 33 with no interviews because they are a bunch of lying tool bags.

 

[Lukkie]

go ahead and claim it was a mistake, but in another post, you claimed that you scored a 40S. but now you say you scored a 41? c'mon homie, step your game up. why come on an anonymous forum and make up a fake persona for yourself. is it way of pretending to be something that you know you can't? a 41 mcat score is like 99.2 percentile which means out of ~70,000 test takers, only 140 score this high. and about 120 of them happen to post on SDN lame-o



lol, this why you should take everything you hear on SDN with a HUGE grain of salt...half the mo fo's on this website are lying out their @SS in my opinion. all these 3.9, 39's with no interviews are prolly more like 3.65 33 with no interviews because they are a bunch of lying tool bags.

 

[Lukkie]

this thread

For me, it is a question of knowledge retention and critical thinking. I was a lazy *****, and pulled solid B's through all of bio and much of physics. However, come MCAT time, I still have near-perfect conceptual recall of the 85-88% of the material I knew to begin with. Since the MCAT is less rigorous than, say, Molecular Genetics, I was able to manage 15P, 15B, 11V with relative ease. In that regard, my 3.4 GPA isn't very well correlated with my 41. As far as I'm concerned, the MCAT score says something far more interesting than GPA - other people (who don't have 3.95, 28 stats), such as scientists and statisticians, tend to agree.

from the april MCAT thread:

I love this... you spent 7 months, 10 hour days... 5 days a week, that's something like 1500hrs for one test. You spent 9000% more energy than I did... and who got the higher score - 40S.

I'll take my other 1484 hours and get a commercial pilot's license.

Seriously, people, time management. I don't want a doctor who needs 1500 hours to prepare for anything. In fact, I find it unlikely that I'll spend more than 1500 hours studying for all of med school.

so giving you the benefit of the doubt - you scored a 40S in april, weren't satisfied with it, and apparently retook it sometime later and scored a 41.

but ill go with what up doc, and just call you full of ****

 

[SiR99]

Its like people on SDN take notes about each other and keep tabs just to burn you with them later lol

Its pretty messed up lying about your stats to make others feel bad

 

[Lukkie]

Its like people on SDN take notes about each other and keep tabs just to burn you with them later lol

Its pretty messed up lying about your stats to make others feel bad

he only has ~30 posts, digging it up wasn't too hard since everything was on the first page of his post history. its just hilarious, and sad at the same time that he was disparaging so many people in that MCAT thread, people with legitimately decent (~30) scores.

 

[WashMe]

go ahead and claim it was a mistake, but in another post, you claimed that you scored a 40S. but now you say you scored a 41? c'mon homie, step your game up. why come on an anonymous forum and make up a fake persona for yourself. is it way of pretending to be something that you know you can't? a 41 mcat score is like 99.2 percentile which means out of ~70,000 test takers, only 140 score this high. and about 120 of them happen to post on SDN lame-o



lol, this why you should take everything you hear on SDN with a HUGE grain of salt...half the mo fo's on this website are lying out their @SS in my opinion. all these 3.9, 39's with no interviews are prolly more like 3.65 33 with no interviews because they are a bunch of lying tool bags.

take it easy on the 3.9 39's that are struggling this year lol.

also, 99.2%ile is within 39 MCAT range (~99.1-99.4%ile). a 41 would be something like 99.9%ile, which equates to ~70 people. I really doubt that guy is one of them...

 

[What up doc]

he only has ~30 posts, digging it up wasn't too hard since everything was on the first page of his post history. its just hilarious, and sad at the same time that he was disparaging so many people in that MCAT thread, people with legitimately decent (~30) scores.

exactly...this is terrible to admit, but I actually remembered his post about scoring the 40S precisely because of how he was being a jerk to other ppl who scored lower than him...i looked up his post history just to confirm my suspiscion....lol...wayyyyy too much time on SDN

take it easy on the 3.9 39's that are struggling this year lol.

also, 99.2%ile is within 39 MCAT range (~99.1-99.4%ile). a 41 would be something like 99.9%ile, which equates to ~70 people. I really doubt that guy is one of them...

lol my bad dude(tte), i wasnt trying to call anybody specific out, but to me it just seems like someone with a 3.9, 39 would be of such an elite group that it would be hard for me to believe he/she would be incapable of recieiving an acceptance, let alone an interview. i would have to suspect that his/her application some huge, irreconcible and GLARING deficiency (e.g. a repeat offender child molester and child pornography distributor who was featured on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"....twice.)

but if you are one of those individuals, i apologize and wish you the best of luck and perhaps you should look into paying for some admissions counseling...or apply DO

 

[WashMe]

lol my bad dude(tte), i wasnt trying to call anybody specific out, but to me it just seems like someone with a 3.9, 39 would be of such an elite group that it would be hard for me to believe he/she would be incapable of recieiving an acceptance, let alone an interview. i would have to suspect that his/her application some huge, irreconcible and GLARING deficiency (e.g. a repeat offender child molester and child pornography distributor who was featured on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"....twice.)

but if you are one of those individuals, i apologize and wish you the best of luck and perhaps you should look into paying for some admissions counseling...or apply DO

man I can't go DO. my undergrad is probably me hurting already, and I am sick of fighting uphill battles (this cycle being the worst). gotta be the MD for me. and don't tell anyone you noticed me from dateline.

edit: Sorry if i offended anybody going DO, I looked at this post again and what I said came out wrong. It's just that I've fought stigma long enough and I don't want to do it anymore. I'd rather be the guy whose @$$ everyone wants to kiss just for going to a good school, even though I strongly believe it makes little difference.

Perception is reality, in medical school admissions and beyond.

 

[Altruist]

man I can't go DO. my undergrad is probably me hurting already, and I am sick of fighting uphill battles (this cycle being the worst). gotta be the MD for me. and don't tell anyone you noticed me from dateline.

Before this thread goes any further, I have something to tell you... I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline.

At this point, I should say something about how DO and MD are the same for most purposes, but I'm tired of those conversations from the pre-osteo forums. You all know the pros and cons if you've looked on that forum. If I end up going DO, I'll have no regrets; but I also know it's not for everybody. Plus, if you applied this late in the game, I imagine it would be pretty transparent as a back-up move, and you'd really get hammered on the "Why DO" question every school asks.

 

[Lukkie]

whoops!

 

[Murphy Brown]

I'm the poster child for incongruous MCAT/GPA stats. I have a 3.91 GPA, counting this semester's grades and I scored below the national average on the MCAT. I worked my butt off for my GPA, studied much longer than my friends who understood the material instantly or at least got it after a few hours. I worked harder and longer, staying in on weekends to study, getting up early to read over lectures before class, staying after class, going to office hours, whatever I could because I really want to be a doctor, but the MCAT killed me. I studied and studied and I guess my critical thinking skills just aren't up to par. I just really don't know what I'm going to do about it. The MCAT may be one hurdle too hard to cross because I'm not a natural at science.

 

[What up doc]

I'm the poster child for incongruous MCAT/GPA stats. I have a 3.91 GPA, counting this semester's grades and I scored below the national average on the MCAT. I worked my butt off for my GPA, studied much longer than my friends who understood the material instantly or at least got it after a few hours. I worked harder and longer, staying in on weekends to study, getting up early to read over lectures before class, staying after class, going to office hours, whatever I could because I really want to be a doctor, but the MCAT killed me. I studied and studied and I guess my critical thinking skills just aren't up to par. I just really don't know what I'm going to do about it. The MCAT may be one hurdle too hard to cross because I'm not a natural at science.

by national average, do your for matriculants? 31...for applicants? 27? or for testers? 24?...

i feel for ya mayne, but look you can beat this test. its not an iq test. it can be beaten. if you can get a 3.9 you can get a 30 on the MCAT. you dont have to be natural at science. hell, you dont even have to think like a scientist. if anything, you have to think UN-like a scientist. its a standardize test, and like all standardized test, it can be figured out. with enough practice and memorization, you can learn to apply the methodology you used to answer previous questions to never before seen questions. just put the same effort you put into earning those grades into FIGURING OUT the MCAT. not figuring out how to think critically. not figuring out how to think like a scientist. youre goal is to get into medical school. to get into med school you gotta beat the MCAT. so practice, practice, practice and figure out how to think the way the test makers want you to think. and after you finish the test. never think like that again. well, at least not until the boards

 

[alibai3ah]

Interesting post, although I personally believe MCAt is a better gauge of your intellect. B/c gpa has to many other factors taken into account. Your major, you undergrad institution. So if you see a 33er with 3.1, he might be going to harvard....and if you see a 4.0 and 21er, he might be going to an easy school

 

[Lukkie]

oh snap here we go again.

 

[Vihsadas]

Yay for outliers! Yay for SDN!

In short, don't worry about all these correlations and statiscal analyses, yadda, yadda. The only sample you care about is YOU. And you are N=1. Go and be that outlier.

 

[tdittyx2x3]

Yay for outliers! Yay for SDN!

In short, don't worry about all these correlations and statiscal analyses, yadda, yadda. The only sample you care about is YOU. And you are N=1. Go and be that outlier.

Inspirational advice. I like. btw, anyone read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell? It's about how and why "successful" people came to be successful. I'm reading it now and its pretty decent..

 

[DrDre2001]

I wouldnt expect any significant correlation.

A person with a high mcat/low gpa might just be lazy so their GPA is below average.

A person with a low mcat/high gpa might be have a great work ethic and this contributes to their gpa.




Also, saying that getting A's in the pre-req classes taken freshmen and sophomore year should help someone get a good score on the MCAT in their junior year is bogus to me. There is such a big gap between the MCAT and the pre-req classes for most people that they end up forgetting most of what they learned in the pre-req class. So the person with an A in freshmen yr chemistry doesnt have that great of an advantage over a person who got a B- by the time these two people are studying for the mcat junior yr. I got an A in Orgo, yet had to review orgo just as hard as i did physics (which i got a C in) when i was studying for the mcat this past summer.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I actually would think there is a relatively significant correlation.
Face it, for the most part high Gpa=mastery of the material which most likely means a decent to good MCAT score. Vice Versa for Low GPA.

But thats not to say the beast cant be beaten, and I second what Vihsadas said.

 

[Turtle01]

the guy with the 41 (or 40?) also claims to have a 174 IQ, thus making him a genius in the literal sense of the word. congrats if this is true.

 

[PagingDrP]

I feel that there is a range of MCAT scores that correlates (fairly roughly) with a range of GPA's...the MCAT, especially at scores above, say 33, can come down to a few lucky guesses/unlucky stupid errors, whereas GPA provides a much more consistent, thorough presentation of what you are capable of, and I think med schools consider this.

 

[IndianVercetti]

Yay for outliers! Yay for SDN!

In short, don't worry about all these correlations and statiscal analyses, yadda, yadda. The only sample you care about is YOU. And you are N=1. Go and be that outlier.

Thanks! haha best advice I've received in a long time.

 

[Murphy Brown]

by national average, do your for matriculants? 31...for applicants? 27? or for testers? 24?...

i feel for ya mayne, but look you can beat this test. its not an iq test. it can be beaten. if you can get a 3.9 you can get a 30 on the MCAT. you dont have to be natural at science. hell, you dont even have to think like a scientist. if anything, you have to think UN-like a scientist. its a standardize test, and like all standardized test, it can be figured out. with enough practice and memorization, you can learn to apply the methodology you used to answer previous questions to never before seen questions. just put the same effort you put into earning those grades into FIGURING OUT the MCAT. not figuring out how to think critically. not figuring out how to think like a scientist. youre goal is to get into medical school. to get into med school you gotta beat the MCAT. so practice, practice, practice and figure out how to think the way the test makers want you to think. and after you finish the test. never think like that again. well, at least not until the boards

For applicants. I got a 20 on the MCAT after studying all summer.

 

[WashMe]

For applicants. I got a 20 on the MCAT after studying all summer.

Stuff like that happens. The top student GPA-wise at my school did the Kaplan course and studied her @$$ off and got a 30. My buddy went out drinking the night before the MCAT and scored a 36 with <1 month of studying. I also know a guy from my school who studied exactly how I did and took several practice tests; his practice average was ~30, but he ended up getting a 24 on the real thing.

 

[AggieMD]

well after you get in, don't worry about your mcat.

there are plenty of people who have scored below a 27 and then rocked the USMLE with > 240

 

[scarletgirl777]

I found that the knowledge required for the MCAT was so rudimentary that the vast majority of things learned in college was unnecessary. The only thing upper level science courses were good for, (as far as taking the MCAT goes), was learning how to take difficult tests effectively under a lot of pressure. The actual content for physics, chemistry and reading was all basically highschool level, and organic and bio was just intro level college. Basically just get a good study book and re-memorize the basic things (ie physics equations, reactions etc,) be a good test taker (know how to think), and its not too bad.
In other words, i dont think there is much of a correlation between MCAT and GPA ability. Both for the most part just require effort and a baseline intelligence. Some people are just lazy at different times.

So true. It's like how the SAT uses middle school/early high school concepts that everyone should know in order to test your critical thinking skills. The fact that you failed AP Calc does not mean you can't do well on the SAT math section.