Current MD schools that do not require MCAT? (non-early acceptance)

[PA_dud3]

---

Members don't see this ad.

New thread idea for ya in 4 years: US Residency Programs that dont require STEP/COMLEX?

 

[MyOdyssey]

One can purchase an annual subscription to the NEJM for $50. This is what I did. Did not have a research based class until the quarter I was taking the MCAT, but I was already scientifically literate by then for a low low price

Did the NEJM help with the dicey biochem passages? I understand those are the most challenging on the new MCAT.

 

[Med Ed]

The OP has a point that the new MCAT is less accessible to those who lack access to research opportunities and/or coursework that exposes students to critical reading of scientific literature as part of the research project and coursework. The heavy emphasis on passages and movement toward making the passages include the dense language and specialized vocabulary of science articles means that students who get an old style memorization driven science education and/or procedure robot research experience are at a big disadvantage going into MCAT prep.

It's probably a lot easier for students at T20 undergrad powerhouses and honors programs at flagship universities to get access to these opportunities. Everybody knows that students who get into these programs skew heavily toward students from higher SES.

The MCAT redesign was done with an eye on mitigating disparities. The behavioral section was added for this express purpose. Same for shifting VR toward more neutral subject matter. The outcomes, however, show the exact same pattern of scores broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and SES as the previous version.

Hence, the problem with the new MCAT isn't that it's worse than the old version. The problem is that it's no better. Well, I do like the more granular scoring scale...

 

[MyOdyssey]

The MCAT redesign was done with an eye on mitigating disparities. The behavioral section was added for this express purpose. Same for shifting VR toward more neutral subject matter. The outcomes, however, show the exact same pattern of scores broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and SES as the previous version.

Hence, the problem with the new MCAT isn't that it's worse than the old version. The problem is that it's no better. Well, I do like the more granular scoring scale...

How does adding the P/S section mitigate disparities?

I'm not sure what's meant here by "more neutral subject matter"?

 

[907914]

Did the NEJM help with the dicey biochem passages? I understand those are the most challenging on the new MCAT.

It helped read science. Read charts, graphs, Electrophoresis banding, keeping track of different mutations and enzyme names, even with the social and psychological aspects from their public health articles.

So, yes - reading science helps you learn how to read science.

 

[chlorocruorin]

All I’m saying is that had I’d been exposed to research and journal articles prior to taking the mcat, my score may have been significantly better. But OP...I still took it and got in and I’m lower SES. I really don’t feel like reading your posts lol but if you have a problem with the mcat just realize that it’s one part of the application. Also, you took the SAT/ACT right? Now, can you honestly say that test was indicative of how much success you’ll have in college? (no) but guess what you took it just like everyone here. Lol

 

[Goro]

One can purchase an annual subscription to the NEJM for $50. This is what I did. Did not have a research based class until the quarter I was taking the MCAT, but I was already scientifically literate by then for a low low price

Two of my local libraries have NEJM.

 

[907914]

Two of my local libraries have NEJM.

Better yet, most universities (even my podunk of like 7000-9000 students) have literally hundreds of subscriptions to various major journals. Libraries are great options for nontrads.

 

[Seihai]

Reading papers for my research projects made CP and BB much more palatable for me. There's also a lot of free resources out there for papers to read that aren't necessarily NEJM (I personally liked methods papers more, since it seemed like many passages were essentially only the methods sections of papers).

 

[deleted972488]

If you have a four year degree in science and you haven’t learned how to read a research paper, your education has failed you.

 

[CJhooper123]

It helped read science. Read charts, graphs, Electrophoresis banding, keeping track of different mutations and enzyme names, even with the social and psychological aspects from their public health articles.

So, yes - reading science helps you learn how to read science.

+1 on reading NEJM for MCAT gains. Super underrated strategy.

I tried reading 3-4 articles per week. Some of the journals have questions in the back which are pretty comparable to BS style MCAT questions.

 

[deleted967981]

If you have a four year degree in science and you haven’t learned how to read a research paper, your education has failed you.

I had exactly two classes in my science undergrad that required us to read scientific literature regularly. One was senior seminar and actually walked us through reading a paper and interpreting the data.

My grad program however, expected extensive paper reading weekly. I sometimes wish I had taken the MCAT after my grad degree, because I was much more comfortable with white papers at that point.

 

[deleted972488]

I had exactly two classes in my science undergrad that required us to read scientific literature regularly. One was senior seminar and actually walked us through reading a paper and interpreting the data.

My grad program however, expected extensive paper reading weekly. I sometimes wish I had taken the MCAT after my grad degree, because I was much more comfortable with white papers at that point.

But if you hadn’t learned how to read a paper in undergraduate you would have been woefully unprepared for your graduate program. I did take the MCAT after my graduate program and it helped a lot with B/B, but not so much with C/P (had to reteach myself all those formulas), so I think it was net neutral.

 

[Osminog]

The MCAT redesign was done with an eye on mitigating disparities. The behavioral section was added for this express purpose. Same for shifting VR toward more neutral subject matter. The outcomes, however, show the exact same pattern of scores broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and SES as the previous version.

Hence, the problem with the new MCAT isn't that it's worse than the old version. The problem is that it's no better. Well, I do like the more granular scoring scale...

The first paragraph of your post is true, but the second paragraph doesn't at all follow from the first. It's almost a total non sequitur.

The purpose of the MCAT redesign wasn't solely to decrease gaps in performance between races, genders, and socioeconomic classes; whether the new MCAT is "worse," "no better," or "better" can't be determined just by looking at test performance differences between demographic groups. The primary purpose of the redesign, as stated by the AAMC, was for the MCAT to better reflect the sorts of knowledge and skills that are required for future physicians in the 21st century.

The only way to truly determine whether the new MCAT is better or worse than the old MCAT would be to figure out whether the new MCAT is more effective than the old MCAT at distinguishing between people who end up becoming successful medical students/physicians and people who end up becoming incompetent medical students/physicians. We can't reasonably say that the new MCAT is "no better" than the old MCAT just because the gap in performance between, say, Asians and blacks hasn't shrunk.

 

[Med Ed]

How does adding the P/S section mitigate disparities?

As it turns out it didn't. The idea was to include a section aimed at applicants with stronger psych/social backgrounds, which would encompass more URMs. If a taker took a hit on the harder sciences (which is what has been observed, historically) the P/S could theoretically compensate and end up generating a better score.

I'm not sure what's meant here by "more neutral subject matter"?

The old verbal reasoning section included passages on the natural sciences, CARS doesn't. This was another attempt to level the playing field a bit.

 

[MyOdyssey]

How does a behavioral section mitigate disparity

As it turns out it didn't. The idea was to include a section aimed at applicants with stronger psych/social backgrounds, which would encompass more URMs. If a taker took a hit on the harder sciences (which is what has been observed, historically) the P/S could theoretically compensate and end up generating a better score.



The old verbal reasoning section included passages on the natural sciences, CARS doesn't. This was another attempt to level the playing field a bit.

Interesting. I had read on here from another ad com poster that the P/S section was added to emphasize the humanistic side of medicine. Perhaps that was also a consideration?

 

[MyOdyssey]

+1 on reading NEJM for MCAT gains. Super underrated strategy.

I tried reading 3-4 articles per week. Some of the journals have questions in the back which are pretty comparable to BS style MCAT questions.

Interesting. I had thought the NEJM was more geared toward clinical research and less so toward basic science research.

 

[907914]

Interesting. I had thought the NEJM was more geared toward clinical research and less so toward basic science research.

It’s got clinically relevant research of all kinds.

 

[907914]

Interesting. I had thought the NEJM was more geared toward clinical research and less so toward basic science research.

Even the opinion pieces can help with CARS. They cover clinical scenarios, but get you to think about opinions you make not necessarily have.

There is clinical research and humanities research as well. Honestly, NEJM probably helped me as much as Khan Academy. Like...no joke.

 

[Osminog]

As it turns out it didn't. The idea was to include a section aimed at applicants with stronger psych/social backgrounds, which would encompass more URMs. If a taker took a hit on the harder sciences (which is what has been observed, historically) the P/S could theoretically compensate and end up generating a better score.

The old verbal reasoning section included passages on the natural sciences, CARS doesn't. This was another attempt to level the playing field a bit.

Sources?

 

[907914]

Sources?

This is the official AAMC page on it. My guess would be the “social detriments” and “diverse population” is the language we are looking for. There are three support articles at the bottom as well.

Changing the MCAT® Exam

Find everything you need to know about the new MCAT exam, including concepts and skills rated as most important for pre-meds to know.

students-residents.aamc.org

 

[deleted804295]

If you have a nice old lady at your testing center like I did then it will be a breeze.

The actual test is not too bad tbh. Just very tiring. And if you do bad you can always retake. It's the preparation that psychs people out. Just put things in perspective.

 

[Hartroc]

Reading some of the OP's posts felt almost exactly like reading a CAR passage, which I find ironic.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

extensive box-checking,

"extensive box-checking" aren't "high quality ECs"...... everyone thinks their ECs are fantastic when in reality most are extremely average.

Acknowledging my personal ignorance to the boards core subject matter (that is discussing the criteria for passage purely in the abstract), I don't believe you need an ~85th percentile on the boards to not be sunk, as is the case for the MCAT.

Lol typical pre-med making arguments based around things they literally have zero understanding of. You are taking that board test against a testing pool of some of the smartest people in the US.... unlike the MCAT where anyone can take it.

If you want to go to medical school, take the MCAT. End of story.

 

[MyOdyssey]

If you have a nice old lady at your testing center like I did then it will be a breeze.

The actual test is not too bad tbh. Just very tiring. And if you do bad you can always retake. It's the preparation that psychs people out. Just put things in perspective.

I need to borrow some of your eternal optimism.

 

[907914]

You are taking that board test against a testing pool of some of the smartest people in the US

Even using OP's cut-off of 85%...If only the top 40% of students get in to medical school then an 85% on the MCAT would be the equivalent of like the 60% on the boards (and they don't even scale 1:1 like that). What is that, like a 240? So even using OPs own logic, there are residencies where that type of student would get screened out for being too low. Am I right in assuming there are even hard cutoffs with many residencies as far as Step1 scores (as they currently stand) go?

Edit: Correction - more like a 237ish. https://www.usmle.org/pdfs/transcripts/USMLE_Step_Examination_Score_Interpretation_Guidelines.pdf

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Am I right in assuming there are even hard cutoffs with many residencies as far as Step1 scores (as they currently stand) go?

Yes and no. There really aren't many hard cutoffs and a lot of them are a lot lower than you would think.

 

[907914]

Yes and no. There really aren't many hard cutoffs and a lot of them are a lot lower than you would think.

Gotcha. Is that mostly then at the Big-Wig type residencies?

 

[EpilepticRat]

This thread reads somewhat like a few CARS passages I've had the misfortune of encountering.

Edit: I see that someone has beaten me to the punch here. Woops

 

[907914]

Just a few thoughts
1) I have sent many non-STEM to med school who the prereqs and little more in the way of science or tech as well little or no hardcore research
2) the NEJM, the AMA list serve, and others offer a significant of free material.

I think that, so far as OPs initial point goes, there is not necessarily any lack of resources for low SES students to study for the MCAT. One can study 100% for the MCAT with just Khan Academy questions, youtube/wikipedia for content, and free research articles available. Scores would likely go up a good chunk by purchasing the AAMC official material, but the free resources available are by-and-large sufficient for anyone, regardless of educational background or upbringing, to score 515+ on the MCAT (I know I predominantly used free resources + AAMC official).

The issue is not in the availability in resources, it is in the access to those resources. Low SES students are less likely to have consistent and reliable transport to the school library, less likely to have at-home wifi, less likely to have a robust advisor network, less likely to have knowledge of the free resources available etc. The responsibility falls on the student still,yes (again, will use myself as an example - I intentionally moved my family on campus for the consistent access to wifi and resources) but that is likely where the disparities fall.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Gotcha. Is that mostly then at the Big-Wig type residencies?

Surprisingly no. It's all over the map as to who has cutoffs. A lot of cutoffs fluctuate each year depending on the applicant pool, or are actually soft and I've seen people match at places with scores below the reported cutoff.

 

[efle]

Memorization and comprehension are not mutually-exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. This is the kind of stuff classmates I was outworking in undergrad said to me about how I tend to be cerebral and gamify everything (spoiler: it worked).

If you were a current medical student, I wouldn't contest what you're saying really, if you said "the skills I acquired on the MCAT are really helping my Step 1 prep" you would hear nothing from me. I don't think anyone who isn't insufferable has ever said this and seriously meant it. But, you're the closest thing to my contemporary save that you've had an MCAT scored, smells like a load of confirmation bias to me.

To add a bit more "new MCAT" terminology, the "critical thinking" you're so keen on is little but a load of arbitrarily constructed/determined "hidden curriculum" grafted on to a respectable undergraduate core science curriculum and afforded equal weight to it.

Hello there, fellow white Californian dude.

I'm a current medical student that has recently taken the USMLE/step and I agree with him. The two exams have a correlation of ~0.7 which in the field of psychometrics is HUGE. The USMLE is actually much more rote-recall oriented in many of its questions (e.g. which receptor type does Drug X affect? a) GABA b) 5HT c) Dopamine d) Histamine e) Achetylcholine). But in the majority of questions, it's reading a vignette and then reasoning out what answer best fits their question about the diagnosis, or treatment, or some element of the pathophys. There's also recently been a lot of biostats and interpreting graphs or experiment data.

It's all remarkably similar to the skills that let you do well on a passage-based, reasoning heavy test like the MCAT. Just, with the additional requirement that you have an encyclopedic fund of knowledge memorized so you can recognize what's going on in the vignette. From there it's the familiar process of reasoning through the best fitting answer out of the multiple options listed.

Also if you write your personal statement in the same style as your SDN posts, it's going to make things much harder. Like someone said above, pretend you're having a semi-formal conversation, like you would with a professor or at a job interview

 

[Med Ed]

Interesting. I had read on here from another ad com poster that the P/S section was added to emphasize the humanistic side of medicine. Perhaps that was also a consideration?

Two birds, one stone.

 

[Med Ed]

Sources?

AAMC presentations at national meetings. From Karen Mitchell's lips to God's ear.

 

[Med Ed]

The only way to truly determine whether the new MCAT is better or worse than the old MCAT would be to figure out whether the new MCAT is more effective than the old MCAT at distinguishing between people who end up becoming successful medical students/physicians and people who end up becoming incompetent medical students/physicians. We can't reasonably say that the new MCAT is "no better" than the old MCAT just because the gap in performance between, say, Asians and blacks hasn't shrunk.

By the time the old MCAT went away, the accepted dividing line for heightened risk of academic trouble was a score of 27. A desirable score was 30+. Performance gaps between different subgroups were well established and consistent.

With the new MCAT the AAMC made a big production about selling 500 as "top of the curve," meaning the threshold for likely success in medical school. The problem was that 500 equates to about a 23 on the old MCAT, and nobody was fooled for very long. The subgroup disparities persist, and 510 is the new 30. So in spite of all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money that went into the redesign, we don't seem to be very far away from where we were four years ago.

That said, there is still much data to be collected and analyzed, and perhaps some surprise regarding the new MCAT's predictive value has yet to be publicized.

 

[efle]

By the time the old MCAT went away, the accepted dividing line for heightened risk of academic trouble was a score of 27. A desirable score was 30+. Performance gaps between different subgroups were well established and consistent.

With the new MCAT the AAMC made a big production about selling 500 as "top of the curve," meaning the threshold for likely success in medical school. The problem was that 500 equates to about a 23 on the old MCAT, and nobody was fooled for very long. The subgroup disparities persist, and 510 is the new 30. So in spite of all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money that went into the redesign, we don't seem to be very far away from where we were four years ago.

That said, there is still much data to be collected and analyzed, and perhaps some surprise regarding the new MCAT's predictive value has yet to be publicized.

On what grounds did they expect Psych/Socio performance to be better from psych/socio majors? It's not like bio science majors were outperforming on the old one, right? If I recall it was the maths/stats people doing the best overall and even in bio section

 

[907914]

By the time the old MCAT went away, the accepted dividing line for heightened risk of academic trouble was a score of 27. A desirable score was 30+. Performance gaps between different subgroups were well established and consistent.

With the new MCAT the AAMC made a big production about selling 500 as "top of the curve," meaning the threshold for likely success in medical school. The problem was that 500 equates to about a 23 on the old MCAT, and nobody was fooled for very long. The subgroup disparities persist, and 510 is the new 30. So in spite of all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money that went into the redesign, we don't seem to be very far away from where we were four years ago.

That said, there is still much data to be collected and analyzed, and perhaps some surprise regarding the new MCAT's predictive value has yet to be publicized.

Is it that students at a 500/23 genuinely don’t perform as well as top tier scores or is it just that medical schools have room to be selective so they are?

 

[907914]

By the time the old MCAT went away, the accepted dividing line for heightened risk of academic trouble was a score of 27. A desirable score was 30+. Performance gaps between different subgroups were well established and consistent.

With the new MCAT the AAMC made a big production about selling 500 as "top of the curve," meaning the threshold for likely success in medical school. The problem was that 500 equates to about a 23 on the old MCAT, and nobody was fooled for very long. The subgroup disparities persist, and 510 is the new 30. So in spite of all the blood, sweat, tears, time, and money that went into the redesign, we don't seem to be very far away from where we were four years ago.

That said, there is still much data to be collected and analyzed, and perhaps some surprise regarding the new MCAT's predictive value has yet to be publicized.

Like, have their been any Step1/MCAT correlations with the new MCAT? Or do we have New MCAT/Matching data yet?

 

[gyngyn]

On what grounds did they expect Psych/Socio performance to be better from psych/socio majors? It's not like bio science majors were outperforming on the old one, right? If I recall it was the maths/stats people doing the best overall and even in bio section

I happen to know that there were very persuasive social scientists on the panel that made this decision...
I sometimes wonder if it had something to do with the fact that job security for science professors has always been the fact that those (awful) classes were effectively required for anyone considering medicine. Given that about a third of freshmen are pre-health, it could have meant a lot more kids signing up for P/S.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I happen to know that there were very persuasive social scientists on the panel that made this decision...
I sometimes wonder if it had something to do with the fact that job security for science professors has always been the fact that those (awful) classes were effectively required for anyone considering medicine. Given that about a third of freshmen are pre-health, it could have meant a lot more kids signing up for P/S.

Awful intro biology classes? How so?

 

[deleted972488]

Like, have their been any Step1/MCAT correlations with the new MCAT? Or do we have New MCAT/Matching data yet?

The data are out there. 500 is enough to pass, but most programs want more than that. Higher scores on the MCAT correlate with higher USMLE scores.

 

[907914]

I happen to know that there were very persuasive social scientists on the panel that made this decision...
I sometimes wonder if it had something to do with the fact that job security for science professors has always been the fact that those (awful) classes were effectively required for anyone considering medicine. Given that about a third of freshmen are pre-health, it could have meant a lot more kids signing up for P/S.

I

The data is out there. 500 is enough to pass, but most programs want more than that. Higher scores on the MCAT correlate with higher USMLE scores.

maybe things will change. If the doom and gloom over on the MD forums tells me anything it is that step 1 will be P/F in a couple years and all that will matter is the school you attend and the number of pubs you crank out.

 

[efle]

The first round of data for MCAT to Step correlation is indeed out. It stayed the same.

 

[Goro]

Is it that students at a 500/23 genuinely don’t perform as well as top tier scores or is it just that medical schools have room to be selective so they are?

data from multiple medical schools show it is the former.

 

[Med Ed]

Is it that students at a 500/23 genuinely don’t perform as well as top tier scores or is it just that medical schools have room to be selective so they are?

 

[allantois]

Don't go to medical school

/

 

[Seihai]

If you have a nice old lady at your testing center like I did then it will be a breeze.

The actual test is not too bad tbh. Just very tiring. And if you do bad you can always retake. It's the preparation that psychs people out. Just put things in perspective.

Honestly, my opinion is that this is is a bad perspective. You should aim to take the MCAT *once*, and not take it half-heartedly with the assumption that you can take it again. It is important to note that a bad score followed up by a good one isn't an application killer, but it doesn't hold a candle to getting a good score the first time around.

 

[deleted804295]

Honestly, my opinion is that this is is a bad perspective. You should aim to take the MCAT *once*, and not take it half-heartedly with the assumption that you can take it again. It is important to note that a bad score followed up by a good one isn't an application killer, but it doesn't hold a candle to getting a good score the first time around.

I actually agree that one should go in with the perspective that they do their best the first time around. This being the case, sometimes people do bad even with great preparation and great FL scores. This isn't the end of the world and retakes are always an option if one bombs the exam.

 

[efle]

You should REALLY try to aim for once because the USMLE only allows you to take it once (unless you fail). Scoring significantly below your average is just something you have to live with forever afterwards, and can cost you the specialty you wanted.

 

[Seihai]

I actually agree that one should go in with the perspective that they do their best the first time around. This being the case, sometimes people do bad even with great preparation and great FL scores. This isn't the end of the world and retakes are always an option if one bombs the exam.

Like I said, I don't disagree with telling people who have done poorly that they can retake, but it doesn't necessarily bode well for the future. As @efle says, doing poorly on future exams will usually limit your career paths significantly, and schools don't want people who have to take exams multiple times to get a good score.