Do medical schools weight MCAT sections differently?

[efle]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

From my understanding, a major motivation to both add the new section and restructure the existing ones was to help weed out some of the students who are very intellectually intelligent, but lack any sense. The profession, the theory goes, needs more... of a human touch, to put it briefly. Whether or not that was the true motivation, the new exam does reward "bigger picture" thinking and analysis more so than the old exam. IMO, and ostensibly that of the AAMC, that long game predictive power is more important than STEP 1 score correlation. I wonder if there is a possible revamp of the STEP 1 in the pipeline, as well. Or, (without looking at any pertinent data) if there has been an upward trend in STEP 1 scores similar to what we were seeing in the old MCAT, I would think we may see that trend level off for at least a few years as the "new breed" of students come through (maybe a more bimodal distribution?). Obviously, the top MCAT performers would have gained admission under either exam, but there is surely a shift in the types of thinkers who make up the bottom ~25%.

I don't buy much of the intended change ups for the new test, eg they wanted it to function more as a competency test and urge schools to consider anything 500+ good enough. No way in hell that happens. Similarly I think the changes to passages and problems themselves is way overblown, my sibling's practice materials were not distinctly different, other than changing the subject matter most focused on, and neither was the practice Psych/Socio I had at the end of my test. I suppose it's all speculation for several years to come, but I'd wager a great deal that the MCAT changes very little to nothing about the population gaining acceptances to med schools.

 

[libertyyne]

Well...years out, Verbal starts to correlate more strongly with Canadian metrics and the USMLE step 3, which isn't relevant to med school performance and residency competitiveness. Not the best argument for it. I was top percent all sections and would personally be impressed more by high verbal than bio, but if I was in admissions looking to build the best med school class the research would make me emphasize Bio a lot more.

I think the best answer from what I've read on SDN is that yes, you can be helped or hurt more by which subsections are strong or weak, but WHICH subsections will vary between readers.

You are assuming schools only care about residency placement and passing classes. Rather Medical schools and the AAMC are looking at the bigger picture.
Here is an excerpt from that paper:

"But the ability to excel academically carries less and less gravitas as the domain assessed shifts from the more purely cognitive to the more clinical and ultimately more professional. If the goal of medical schools is to churn out medical science cognitive experts, then GPA is the way to go. The real world, however, places a higher premium on the superb clinician and professional—at least, so it would seem. But in that real world, there are not a lot of physicians with weak cognitive skills. The majority of complaints to State medical boards may be due to issues of professionalism, but that is only because the vast majority of medical aspirants of lower intellectual caliber have been weeded out by GPA and by the Biological Science and Physical Science sections of the MCAT whose predictive validity trends mirror those of GPA (see Figs. 1, 2, 3). Without these screening measures, a much higher proportion of complaints would be due to cognitive, rather than professional, ineptness"

This chart shows the reason why a large number of schools have jumped on MMI, with your logic they should not care about these correlations because they are not as strong as a the science sections and STEP I but they show increasing trend just like the Verbal Section. Furthermore, these effects seem to increase over time compared to the BS and PS section which diminish.

I dont think any school has the mission of churning out doctors that perform well on STEP I and prestigious residency placements. Rather they are focused on creating excellent clinicians. My argument is that CARS and MMI are actually more predictive of that as evidenced by the higher predictive power they seem to have compared to other measures on metrics of Clinical competence.

 

[ATPsynthase123]

I keep telling myself that, but waiting for II's isn't kind on the nerves lol.

I would eat a poop hotdog to have my score changed to a 521


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

You are assuming schools only care about residency placement and passing classes. Rather Medical schools and the AAMC are looking at the bigger picture.
Here is an excerpt from that paper:

"But the ability to excel academically carries less and less gravitas as the domain assessed shifts from the more purely cognitive to the more clinical and ultimately more professional. If the goal of medical schools is to churn out medical science cognitive experts, then GPA is the way to go. The real world, however, places a higher premium on the superb clinician and professional—at least, so it would seem. But in that real world, there are not a lot of physicians with weak cognitive skills. The majority of complaints to State medical boards may be due to issues of professionalism, but that is only because the vast majority of medical aspirants of lower intellectual caliber have been weeded out by GPA and by the Biological Science and Physical Science sections of the MCAT whose predictive validity trends mirror those of GPA (see Figs. 1, 2, 3). Without these screening measures, a much higher proportion of complaints would be due to cognitive, rather than professional, ineptness"

This chart shows the reason why a large number of schools have jumped on MMI, with your logic they should not care about these correlations because they are not as strong as a the science sections and STEP I but they show increasing trend just like the Verbal Section. Furthermore, these effects seem to increase over time compared to the BS and PS section which diminish.
View attachment 208607

I think schools chase stellar MCATs because they like students with the step 1s to chase competitive residencies, but not that they care ONLY about the MCAT. MMIs correlate far better with year 3-4 clinical grading, so that becomes very useful as well. They want to spot the complete package whenever possible, of course.

But 1) those charts are really lame, it's stupid to keep pushing stuff like Canadian metrics to make their point and 2) why do YOU think top med schools heavily emphasize MCAT, some to the point of top percentile medians, when anything 25+ predicts passing at near 100% rates? Many groups out there talk a lot about changing what gets emphasized in this process, but to me the situation clearly remains stats-focused to a level that reveals "human touch" and "professionalism" are not at the tip top of the list of concerns for admissions.

 

[libertyyne]

I think schools chase stellar MCATs because they like students with the step 1s to chase competitive residencies, but not that they care ONLY about the MCAT. MMIs correlate far better with year 3-4 clinical grading, so that becomes very useful as well. They want to spot the complete package whenever possible, of course.

But 1) those charts are really lame, it's stupid to keep pushing stuff like Canadian metrics to make their point and 2) why do YOU think top med schools heavily emphasize MCAT, some to the point of top percentile medians, when anything 25+ predicts passing at near 100% rates? Many groups out there talk a lot about changing what gets emphasized in this process, but to me the situation clearly remains stats-focused to a level that reveals "human touch" and "professionalism" are not at the tip top of the list of concerns for admissions.

My argument was more nuanced than that. The argument is if I have a candidate with 3.9, 132, 126, 132, 130, and one with 3.9, 129, 132, 129, 130 both are 520 but I would take the candidate with the higher CARS score because of its predictive power down the road for being a better clinician. That does not mean I do not prefer higher mcat scores, rather I place value on creating better clinicians by selecting for higher mcat scores with emphasis on MMI and CARS.

2)I am assuming the candian data is the only data that is valid for clinical performance and easily available for the time frame out of medical school. Also a large portion of these studies are coming out of Macmaster. Blame them.

 

[787593]

.

 

[efle]

My argument was more nuanced than that. The argument is if I have a candidate with 3.9, 132, 126, 132, 130, and one with 3.9, 129, 132, 129, 130 both are 520 but I would take the candidate with the higher CARS score because of its predictive power down the road for being a better clinician. That does not mean I do not prefer higher mcat scores, rather I place value on creating better clinicians by selecting for higher mcat scores with emphasis on MMI and CARS.

Right, and I'm pointing out if "excellent clinicians" was the highest end goal, high MCATs would not be favored to the degree that they are. I'm not refuting anything about what CARS shows vs other sections, I'm using the insane MCAT emphasis overall to refute your idea of why they'd prioritize the CARS.

Said differently, a school keeping their median scores in the top 1-2% simply isn't prioritizing people skills over academic ability in their student body, so saying CARS would be favored for predicting people skills is illogical.

Similarly, look at how research experience has become a de facto requirement. No school interested first and foremost in bedside manner is going to have 95% of students with research. Etc. What admissions should be emphasizing according to groups like the AAMC and that paper author is a far cry from what it clearly is.

 

[hurtem&healem]

Right, and I'm pointing out if "excellent clinicians" was the highest end goal, high MCATs would not be favored to the degree that they are. I'm not refuting anything about what CARS shows vs other sections, I'm using the insane MCAT emphasis overall to refute your idea of why they'd prioritize the CARS.

Said differently, a school keeping their median scores in the top 1-2% simply isn't prioritizing people skills over academic ability in their student body, so saying CARS would be favored for predicting people skills is illogical.

Similarly, look at how research experience has become a de facto requirement. No school interested first and foremost in bedside manner is going to have 95% of students with research. Etc. What admissions should be emphasizing according to groups like the AAMC and that paper author is a far cry from what it clearly is.

Frankly, they want both. The academic ability is essential for understanding the material, passing classes, passing board exams, etc. One can have the perfect bedside manner, but if they cannot pass muster academically then they will not make it through to attending (see Caribbean schools for countless examples). The academic cutoff still leaves a massive number of applicants to sift through. You're at least somewhat correct in that GPA and MCAT both test for academic ability, and medical schools will absolutely be trying to recruit students scoring in the highest percentiles they can. Hence the necessity of the AAMC at least attempting (successfully or not) to modify the exam some to play to different strengths.

There is also one data point that may contradict your assertions that schools do not give any real priority to more subjective measures. The median for both GPA and MCAT of matriculants is often multiple points lower than the medians for applicants, suggesting the school made final selections based on non-numerical assessments. The confounder is that medians for accepted students is not given and may be greater than or equal to those for applicants. Again, we just don't have the data necessary to make any determinations. We see from libertyyne's graph that Verbal has a very high correlation with clerkship scores; I would venture that better analytical skills and an understanding of psych/soc similarly correlates with better application essays and interview skills.

Where am I going with this? I'm not really sure; I fell in a rabbit hole there somewhere. Basically, yes, stats matter. But the AAMC has attempted to make one of those stats mean something different. We have no way of knowing how well it will play out.

 

[efle]

Frankly, they want both. The academic ability is essential for understanding the material, passing classes, passing board exams, etc. One can have the perfect bedside manner, but if they cannot pass muster academically then they will not make it through to attending (see Caribbean schools for countless examples). The academic cutoff still leaves a massive number of applicants to sift through. You're at least somewhat correct in that GPA and MCAT both test for academic ability, and medical schools will absolutely be trying to recruit students scoring in the highest percentiles they can. Hence the necessity of the AAMC at least attempting (successfully or not) to modify the exam some to play to different strengths.

There is also one data point that may contradict your assertions that schools do not give any real priority to more subjective measures. The median for both GPA and MCAT of matriculants is often multiple points lower than the medians for applicants, suggesting the school made final selections based on non-numerical assessments. The confounder is that medians for accepted students is not given and may be greater than or equal to those for applicants. Again, we just don't have the data necessary to make any determinations. We see from libertyyne's graph that Verbal has a very high correlation with clerkship scores; I would venture that better analytical skills and an understanding of psych/soc similarly correlates with better application essays and interview skills.

Where am I going with this? I'm not really sure; I fell in a rabbit hole there somewhere. Basically, yes, stats matter. But the AAMC has attempted to make one of those stats mean something different. We have no way of knowing how well it will play out.

As mentioned above, the cutoff at which academic success is near 100% starts at around a 25 MCAT, hence the AAMC repeatedly stating they hoped schools would view 500+ all as competitive. When a school keeps their median at 37-38 and nearly everyone has research experience, they may want both, but clearly are more interested in sending students to specialize and subspecialize and churn out great work as academic physicians in research centers, than finding the best communicators and bedside manners.

That's not what the matriculation drop shows at all! Schools don't decide who matriculates from the accepted. The shift is due to the fact that the higher end of accepted students is more likely to have alternative attractive offers, while the lower end is not. That is, accepted superstars will more often choose to go elsewhere, so your enrolled population ends up being lower than accepted population.

Now there are some schools that stand out against the trend. For example UCLA could easily gather much higher stats than a 27-39 range, 34 median. But the majority of top schools, with medians in the top few percent and 10th percentiles starting as high as 33-34, are very clearly emphasizing academic ability (not just competency, but outlying outstanding ability), and the correlation to step scores is the very apparent explanation.

 

[libertyyne]

As mentioned above, the cutoff at which academic success is near 100% starts at around a 25 MCAT, hence the AAMC repeatedly stating they hoped schools would view 500+ all as competitive. When a school keeps their median at 37-38 and nearly everyone has research experience, they may want both, but clearly are more interested in sending students to specialize and subspecialize and churn out great work as academic physicians in research centers, than finding the best communicators and bedside manners.

That's not what the matriculation drop shows at all! Schools don't decide who matriculates from the accepted. The shift is due to the fact that the higher end of accepted students is more likely to have alternative attractive offers, while the lower end is not. That is, accepted superstars will more often choose to go elsewhere, so your enrolled population ends up being lower than accepted population.

Now there are some schools that stand out against the trend. For example UCLA could easily gather much higher stats than a 27-39 range, 34 median. But the majority of top schools, with medians in the top few percent and 10th percentiles starting as high as 33-34, are very clearly emphasizing academic ability (not just competency, but outlying outstanding ability), and the correlation to step scores is the very apparent explanation.

So I think here is where the bulk of the difference comes from. We are not talking about the TOP schools. The assertion is for most schools. There will always be research powerhouses that require strong research backgrounds and .1th percentile mcat gpa combinations. But all schools are not harvard, northwestern, or uWash. Their priorities do not reflect the priorities or rubric for accepting students to all other schools. I do not know how these will impact the future admissions process as I do not have a crystal ball, but the fast uptake of MMI just shows how this process is based on the evidence to improve the quality of clinicians. You can not judge the entire lot of schools by just looking at a select handful of outliers .

 

[efle]

So I think here is where the bulk of the difference comes from. We are not talking about the TOP schools. The assertion is for most schools. There will always be research powerhouses that require strong research backgrounds and .1th percentile mcat gpa combinations. But all schools are not harvard, northwestern, or uWash. Their priorities do not reflect the priorities or rubric for accepting students to all other schools. I do not know how these will impact the future admissions process as I do not have a crystal ball, but the fast uptake of MMI just shows how this process is based on the evidence to improve the quality of clinicians. You can not judge the entire lot of schools by just looking at a select handful of outliers .

You don't think most mid tier schools would love to be getting the student bodies of Harvard? Yield protection, trends over time for schools trying to move up (eg NYU) would suggest that median MCATs of 37-38 are only present at the top schools because if typical schools interviewed and accepted the same groups, they'd be left with a largely empty class. Looking at how schools with their pick of the litter behave isn't really a misleading examination of outliers. I'd agree readily that there are exceptions/mission driven programs, but the fact that Tufts has a 34 median doesn't convince me at all that they prefer interpersonal skills to scores in contrast to The Big H down the street.

I really don't mean to sound like I think stats are end all, be all in medical admissions. There is nuance. People skills counts for something. But it's a big pile of BS that, given the option, most schools will focus on recruiting the best bedside caregivers over the juicy academic standouts.

 

[hurtem&healem]

When a school keeps their median at 37-38 and nearly everyone has research experience, they may want both, but clearly are more interested in sending students to specialize and subspecialize and churn out great work as academic physicians in research centers, than finding the best communicators and bedside manners.

You are right. Research powerhouses do not, on the whole, want to create community physicians. That is not their goal, and it is not the type of student they attract. How many schools have an average MCAT of 38, though? You're talking about a very small minority of institutions.

Schools don't decide who matriculates from the accepted. The shift is due to the fact that the higher end of accepted students is more likely to have alternative attractive offers, while the lower end is not. That is, accepted superstars will more often choose to go elsewhere, so your enrolled population ends up being lower than accepted population.

The first part of this is precisely what I'm saying. We have medians of applicants and matriculants. We lack medians of acceptees. We cannot know how the medians of accepted applicants compares to that of total applicants or matriculants. I pointed out that the matriculant data may (i.e., possibly could) point to subjective criteria asserting a greater sway than you appear to believe, and I tempered that by pointing out the confounder of, again, not having access to the data for acceptees.
The bolded is conjecture; it is an assumption. While it is likely true, we do not know to what extent. If median applicants is 35, and median matriculants is 32, median acceptees may be 32, 33, 34... I even stated it's possible it could be 36+. We Don't Know.

 

[libertyyne]

You don't think most mid tier schools would love to be getting the student bodies of Harvard? Yield protection, trends over time for schools trying to move up (eg NYU) would suggest that median MCATs of 37-38 are only present at the top schools because if typical schools interviewed and accepted the same groups, they'd be left with a largely empty class. Looking at how schools with their pick of the litter behave isn't really a misleading examination of outliers. I'd agree readily that there are exceptions/mission driven programs, but the fact that Tufts has a 34 median doesn't convince me at all that they prefer interpersonal skills to scores in contrast to The Big H down the street.

I really don't mean to sound like I think stats are end all, be all in medical admissions. There is nuance. People skills counts for something. But it's a big pile of BS that, given the option, most schools will focus on recruiting the best bedside caregivers over the juicy academic standouts.

Once again a really broad brush. Look at most state school. Their lizzyMs are mostly in the 60's most of them could easily accept students OOS applicants with LizzyMs in the 70's to fill their classes, not really happening. The CARS and MMIs give another tool to make these selections to drive accepting students that will make excellent physicans. You are looking at Ferraris and using them as an example to say that most people do not focus on fuel economy in cars.

Also, I have one word for Tufts ,GW and Georgetown. Location, location, location.

 

[efle]

You are right. Research powerhouses do not, on the whole, want to create community physicians. That is not their goal, and it is not the type of student they attract. How many schools have an average MCAT of 38, though? You're talking about a very small minority of institutions.

The first part of this is precisely what I'm saying. We have medians of applicants and matriculants. We lack medians of acceptees. We cannot know how the medians of accepted applicants compares to that of total applicants or matriculants. I pointed out that the matriculant data may (i.e., possibly could) point to subjective criteria asserting a greater sway than you appear to believe, and I tempered that by pointing out the confounder of, again, not having access to the data for acceptees.
The bolded is conjecture; it is an assumption. While it is likely true, we do not know to what extent. If median applicants is 35, and median matriculants is 32, median acceptees may be 32, 33, 34... I even stated it's possible it could be 36+. We Don't Know.

Aren't there something like 20 schools with medians in the top few percent (36-38)? Compared to the total number of private, non mission oriented schools it's not such a small group. And even at the more mid-level ones like Tufts, you see a MASSIVE emphasis on interviewing the upper crust of applicants by MCAT.

I think you need to check what the MSAR data shows again. We do in fact have applicant, accepted applicant, and matriculant ranges. The trend is to accept from almost entirely the top quartile of applicants, and then to see the numbers fall slightly for matriculants compared to accepted.

 

[efle]

Once again a really broad brush. Look at every state school ever. Their lizzyMs are mostly in the 60's most of them could easily accept students OOS applicants with LizzyMs in the 70's to fill their classes, not really happening. The CARS and MMIs give another tool to make these selections to drive accepting students that will make excellent physicans. You are looking at Ferraris and using them as an example to say that most people do not focus on fuel economy in cars.

Also, I have one word for Tufts ,GW and Georgetown. Location, location, location.

State schools DO tend to pick up higher stats out of staters. Eg. Oregon explicitly recommends on their website that out of staters apply if they have stats at and above their schools overall median. I was including state schools with instate preference among the exceptions with missions (eg mission to provide physicians to state x).

Not really. I'm looking at what cars rich people buy and noticing a lot of feraris. You're looking at commonly purchased cars in the middle class and saying look! People want Camry instead of Lambo after all.

I'll point out again - YIELD PROTECTION. It's not really disputed that extremely competitive people can get ignored at schools that know, historically, it's a waste of an interview slot on someone with very low chance of matriculating. Schools know when they're a safety. People know when they can't afford a Lotus and don't even shop around.

 

[efle]

Location, location, as if schools like Yale or WashU are in a prime spot or great city lol. Doesn't do all that much to determine things

 

[hurtem&healem]

Aren't there something like 20 schools with medians in the top few percent (36-38)?

Harvard's matriculant median is 36. Can't imagine there are many above that.

I think you need to check what the MSAR data shows again. We do in fact have applicant, accepted applicant, and matriculant ranges. The trend is to accept from almost entirely the top quartile of applicants, and then to see the numbers fall slightly for matriculants compared to accepted.

We have 10-90th percentiles for accepted, but not median. We also only have the range of applicants this year because of the way they have reported the new exam.

Regardless, what you are suggesting is that most schools don't seek out "good doctors," but good STEP 1 takers. My original assertion wasn't to contradict that, but rather that the AAMC is trying to change it by altering the focus of the MCAT. In theory, if schools continue to seek out the highest MCAT scorers (as you assert), they will inadvertently be selecting for better analytical skills, as opposed to pure scientific knowledge, than they had in the past. It will be several years before we see the degree to which this will be successful toward the AAMCs stated goals.

 

[efle]

Harvard's matriculant median is 36. Can't imagine there are many above that.



We have 10-90th percentiles for accepted, but not median. We also only have the range of applicants this year because of the way they have reported the new exam.

Regardless, what you are suggesting is that most schools don't seek out "good doctors," but good STEP 1 takers. My original assertion wasn't to contradict that, but rather that the AAMC is trying to change it by altering the focus of the MCAT. In theory, if schools continue to seek out the highest MCAT scorers (as you assert), they will inadvertently be selecting for better analytical skills, as opposed to pure scientific knowledge, than they had in the past. It will be several years before we see the degree to which this will be successful toward the AAMCs stated goals.

You'd be surprised, I can name less famous names with higher, eg Vandy is a 37 this year, Chicago 38.

The green bar described as "applicant median" is the accepted applicant median. The applicant pool to Chicago wasn't 50+% people with 38+ scores for example, that isn't even possible with 5000 apps per year. The new score ranges show who applies, old score green boxes who is accepted, yellow boxes who enrolls.

 

[efle]

I think you're right about what the AAMC wants to see happen, I'm just very skeptical they've changed anything significantly, based on what I've seen of the new test. Will be interesting to see how Step1 correlates to the new MCAT in a few years, if it is better or worse than the ~0.60 for the old one!

 

[libertyyne]

I guess we all agree with the intent, the question you are asking is a valid one whether it will change the composition of the class.I agree with your cynicism towards the process . However I am unsure if I can produce the data to show valid changes in schools. Just like the SES indicator introduction and the MMI. A lot of it is one large trial. It would be interesting to see in a few years if we have less Dr.Houses and more Dr.Wilsons 🙂.

And I guess thats all I was saying, that If I was an adcom, I would give higher preference to CARS and MMI with all things equal.

But what do I know, I am just some schmuck applicant.

 

[hurtem&healem]

edit: psych, I'm an idiot. So much for my ability to read that table. Anyway... it will indeed be interesting to see how things correlate 5 years from now.

 

[efle]

Source? It says this is the case for National Median (blue), but nowhere does it say so for Applicant Median. Nor do I see any reason that should be inferred.

I started a thread about the ambiguity when the new MSAR dropped, an AAMC associated account let me know that it was accepted applicants (as has always been the case in prior years when we ONLY knew acceptee numbers, not applicant numbers) but I also removed the thread because there were screen grabs of the MSAR to illustrate what we were talking about that they said was a violation of terms of use.

It can be inferred a couple ways as well - firstly, there aren't enough 38+ scorers to have a 38 median among 5000+ applicants. Secondly, the numbers are vastly, vastly higher than the ranges seen with post-2015 applicants...because the accepted group each year is drawn from the upper couple deciles of applicants.

You can search around or email AAMC if you aren't convinced. It's poorly constructed but very clearly the case when you consider the numbers.

 

[libertyyne]

I started a thread about the ambiguity when the new MSAR dropped, an AAMC associated account let me know that it was accepted applicants (as has always been the case in prior years when we ONLY knew acceptee numbers, not applicant numbers) but I also removed the thread because there were screen grabs of the MSAR to illustrate what we were talking about that they said was a violation of terms of use.

It can be inferred a couple ways as well - firstly, there aren't enough 38+ scorers to have a 38 median among 5000+ applicants. Secondly, the numbers are vastly, vastly higher than the ranges seen with post-2015 applicants...because the accepted group each year is drawn from the upper couple deciles of applicants.

You can search around or email AAMC if you aren't convinced. It's poorly constructed but very clearly the case when you consider the numbers.

Did you take into account the three year shelf life of MCATs?

 

[hurtem&healem]

It actually says right at the top of the chart, "Data for Accepted Applicants."

oops


I absolutely new that before. It's the total applicant pool that we only know because of the new MCAT graph. This is what I get for arguing from my phone when I should be doing other things.

 

[efle]

Did you take into account the three year shelf life of MCATs?

Still not possible, since schools have held 38 medians in that box for several years in a row (eg WashU) with 4000+ of applicants in each year. 38s get accepted at too high a rate for it to be possible even if every single person scoring that well applied to the school, including both applicants and reapplicants...also that box has always been acceptee data and I've had it confirmed for me!

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

All I've ever heard is that CARS is the most important, always has been. It's literally just critical thinking and analysis, the kind of brain skills you want your doctor to have. Plenty of people memorize science enough to do OK on the other sections, but CARS helps weed them out if they cannot think about new information presented to them.

It is always interesting to read this comment. The only people who I have ever heard say CARS (or Verbal) was the most important section were salespeople for prep companies. I have been to a few AAMC conferences in my life and have never once heard any official AAMC representative say this. I have been to plenty of medical conferences and the times a dean spoke about the MCAT, if they said anything at all, they said the most important score for admissions purposes was B.S. If you look at the admissions numbers from AAMC you will see that for year after year the B.S. section has the highest average for accepted and matriculated students (despite the MCAT distribution for both fitting essentially equal bell curves). Here are the exact numbers from the AAMC website. Click on it to verify. Saying (Verbal or CARS) is more important than BS is an urban myth that gets propagated by a few voices. The MCAT gets you into medical school, so if all of the data points to BS scores being better for those accepted to medical school than CARS scores, then there is no way to conclude that CARS is more important than BS. If you have tangible evidence supporting your statement, then please post the reference to the resource. I have looked for some time to get tangible support for this, and there is absolutely nothing in writing from AAMC saying verbal is most important. The correlation studies to USMLE scores (shown above) indicate that BS predicts MSI, MSII, and USMLE 1 and 2 success better than CARS and that CARS predicts USMLE 3 success better than BS. But as far as which one is most important to admissions people, that answer is pretty clear.

Its not about the raw score, its about the percentiles aka how you compare to others. And I would hope that the section testing biology and biochemistry for MEDICAL SCHOOL admission would have the highest average score, considering that is what most of us spend 4 years studying. Being a history major, I did not, but the biology and biochemistry is easy enough to pickup. Way easier than learning to read and think critically is anyway (IMO).

You posted the perfect data shot with your post. It shows essentially ideal bell curves for CARS (centered on 124.9) and Bio/Biochemistry (centered on 125.0). This is typical is you go back over the years. If as you proposed earlier that CARS was the most important section, then the accepted/matriculant data would show a bias towards that section. The fact that B.S. scores are markedly higher for people attending medical school shows that medical schools prefer people with biology backgrounds. They prefer biological aptitude not because it's what most people study for four years, but because it is most applicable to medical school. Science involves more critical thinking and analysis than CARS. CARS is reading comprehension and argument analysis. The science sections involve the application of basic principles to solve problems using linear reasoning. I did not majoring history, but in the classes I have taken I recall having to memorize a significantly large amount of dates, locations, and names. That was perhaps the most memorization of any course I took. But given that medical school entails a significant amount of memorization (anatomy, drug names, and so forth) it is a necessary skill for a physician, so studying history can be helpful in developing the necessary memorization skills.

You have the causality reversed. More people tend to score higher on the science sections compared to the verbal section. This does not show that schools prefer higher science scores, rather the population that they are selecting their applicants from is limited in the number that have exceptional verbal scores. This is even more apparent when you look at the percentiles across the sections where verbal for the same score is a higher percentile, meaning less people have that score and it is rarer.

You should double check your comment about people scoring higher on science section than the verbal section. Look at the attachment to AndelJ94's post above and you will actually see AAMC data showing normalized scores. When it comes to the scores that medical schools see and use for evaluation, assuming the people taking the MCAT are the ones applying to medical school, the numbers are essentially equal for VR and BS in terms of applicants (thanks to the normalization process). It has been this way (more or less, with an occasional 0.1 to 0.3 difference in the mean) for years. Year after year medical schools are selecting BS > PS > Verbal. Having been to many, many conferences it is clear that they prefer the biological science based scores over all others, because medical school curriculum requires the ability to reason through biological problems more than anything else.

 

[chrisjh]

I have a feeling CARS is weighted the lowest a lot of the time, because all the other sections have a significant amount of critical think built in anyways. Especially that new B/B section. That was rough.
Just my thinking.

 

[libertyyne]

It is always interesting to read this comment. The only people who I have ever heard say CARS (or Verbal) was the most important section were salespeople for prep companies. I have been to a few AAMC conferences in my life and have never once heard any official AAMC representative say this. I have been to plenty of medical conferences and the times a dean spoke about the MCAT, if they said anything at all, they said the most important score for admissions purposes was B.S. If you look at the admissions numbers from AAMC you will see that for year after year the B.S. section has the highest average for accepted and matriculated students (despite the MCAT distribution for both fitting essentially equal bell curves). Here are the exact numbers from the AAMC website. Click on it to verify. Saying (Verbal or CARS) is more important than BS is an urban myth that gets propagated by a few voices. The MCAT gets you into medical school, so if all of the data points to 1.BS scores being better for those accepted to medical school than CARS scores, then there is no way to conclude that CARS is more important than BS. If you have tangible evidence supporting your statement, then please post the reference to the resource. I have looked for some time to get tangible support for this, and there is absolutely nothing in writing from 2.AAMC saying verbal is most important. The correlation studies to USMLE scores (shown above) indicate that BS predicts MSI, MSII, and USMLE 1 and 2 success better than CARS and that CARS predicts USMLE 3 success better than BS. But as far as which one is most important to admissions people, that answer is pretty clear.

.

1.I think you are confusing correlation with causality. Just because medical school matriculants tend to have higher scores on the BS section does not mean that admissions committees tend to focus on that number, the very chart you linked disproves your entire argument. Look at the applicant data. THE AVERAGE SCORE FOR ALL APPLICANTS IS .9 POINTS HIGHER FOR BS COMPARED TO VR. What does this mean for matriculants coming out of that pool? MATRICULANTS WILL HAVE ON AVERAGE a HIGHER BS SECTION SCORE.

2.Also, do you really think AAMC is going to say that verbal is more important? They are literally trying to say that it is better if you just say close to 500 is good enough and accept the applicant as a whole.

It is harder to get a 10 in verbal compared to a 10 in BS. 16 people out of a 100 will have a 10 in Verbal vs 24 people out of 100 for biology. Once again showing that A higher verbal scores are rarer, B your argument that Medical schools look for higher BB scores is without merit.

You posted the perfect data shot with your post. It shows essentially ideal bell curves for CARS (centered on 124.9) and Bio/Biochemistry (centered on 125.0). This is typical is you go back over the years. If as you proposed earlier that CARS was the most important section, then the accepted/matriculant data would show a bias towards that section. 3.The fact that B.S. scores are markedly higher for people attending medical school shows that medical schools prefer people with biology backgrounds. They prefer biological aptitude not because it's what most people study for four years, but because it is most applicable to medical school. Science involves more critical thinking and analysis than CARS. CARS is reading comprehension and argument analysis. The science sections involve the application of basic principles to solve problems using linear reasoning. I did not majoring history, but in the classes I have taken I recall having to memorize a significantly large amount of dates, locations, and names. That was perhaps the most memorization of any course I took. But given that medical school entails a significant amount of memorization (anatomy, drug names, and so forth) it is a necessary skill for a physician, so studying history can be helpful in developing the necessary memorization skills.

3. You have no basis for this, this is a circular argument. If more people with Bio backgrounds apply to medical school they will obviously take more people with bio backgrounds in their classes. Do they also prefer ORM candidates?

Please look at the data you referenced. Take 127 and look at the differences in percentiles. At 127 CARS 81st vs BB at 77 percentile. Meaning there are 4 more people in hundred scoring higher in the BB VS the CARS. A thing you are easily forgetting is that AAMC partially changed the test to make the distributions better. There used to be a time when there was a large clustering around 10. Please look at image above.

You should double check your comment about people scoring higher on science section than the verbal section. Look at the attachment to AndelJ94's post above and you will actually see AAMC data showing normalized scores. When it comes to the scores that medical schools see and use for evaluation, assuming the people taking the MCAT are the ones applying to medical school, the numbers are essentially equal for VR and BS in terms of applicants (thanks to the normalization process). 4.It has been this way (more or less, with an occasional 0.1 to 0.3 difference in the mean) for years. 5.Year after year medical schools are selecting BS > PS > Verbal. 6.Having been to many, many conferences it is clear that they prefer the biological science based scores over all others, because medical school curriculum requires the ability to reason through biological problems more than anything else.

4. You are literally wrong.

5.Correlation vs Causation again.
3. Please provide me with a source. Because I can make up facts like this too. Here is an example: I have spoken to many med students and adcoms they prefer VERBAL!. President Barack Obama Prefers VERBAL! 9/10 adcoms perfer verbal. The pope says if you dont get a 10 on the verbal you wont get into heaven.

 

[chrisjh]

99% of people I have seen, including adcoms on here say verbal is the least significant for admissions. Except for canadian schools, of course. ..

 

[gyngyn]

99% of people I have seen, including adcoms on here say verbal is the least significant for admissions. Except for canadian schools, of course. ..

I like verbal...

 

[chrisjh]

I like verbal...

I dont think its unimportant, it just seems like the general consensus is that the other sections are more so....

 

[gyngyn]

I dont think its unimportant, it just seems like the general consensus is that the other sections are more so....

Everyone has pet subscores. As long as the total score is in range and no subscore is very much lower than acceptable, all is well.

 

[libertyyne]

Your determination to validate the importance of your verbal score is truly admirable.

It was more along the lines of people speaking with authority who misinterpret data drives me up the wall.

I was very clear that the answer to this question is definitely a
Yes,
No
Maybe

I also look the adcom in the eyes and whisper my verbal score during interviews, lets see how this strategy pays off.

 

[libertyyne]

Everyone has pet subscores. As long as the total score is in range and no subscore is very much lower than acceptable, all is well.

What is a cut-off for you. Would it be worth mentioning that English is my third language when speaking about my high verbal scores?

 

[gyngyn]

What is a cut-off for you. Would it be worth mentioning that English is my third language when speaking about my high verbal scores?

I don't really have a "cut-off."
You would come off as "douchey" by bringing up such a thing.

 

[libertyyne]

I don't really have a "cut-off."
You would come off as "douchey" by bringing up such a thing.

Thank you. I have tried to avoid conversations about scores or metrics during interviews because they really dont matter. Last II the adcom complimented me on my scores. I wasnt sure if mentioning the struggles I had in ESL and the hard work that ultimately lead to the score would have been worth adding to the conversation. But I will avoid.

 

[gyngyn]

Thank you. I have tried to avoid conversations about scores or metrics during interviews because they really dont matter. Last II the adcom complimented me on my scores. I wasnt sure if mentioning the struggles I had in ESL and the hard work that ultimately lead to the score would have been worth adding to the conversation. But I will avoid.

Acknowledge the compliment with grace. That is enough.

 

[787593]

"The most important section is the one I do the best in" ~ the secret feelings of everyone

 

[libertyyne]

Acknowledge the compliment with grace. That is enough.

Thank you.

 

[Lawpy]

99% of people I have seen, including adcoms on here say verbal is the least significant for admissions. Except for canadian schools, of course. ..

I like verbal...

So you think verbal is the most significant for admissions? I can easily see the rationale behind it, since unlike other sections, you don't need (aren't supposed to use) outside knowledge to do well on the section. It's purely reasoning and analysis from various texts provided. This is distorted in other sections due to requirement of strong content background (although one can make a case that synthesizing reasoning skills with strong background knowledge is basically what medicine is about --> this further reinforces the assertion that biology is the most important MCAT subsection).

 

[gyngyn]

So you think verbal is the most significant for admissions? I can easily see the rationale behind it, since unlike other sections, you don't need (aren't supposed to use) outside knowledge to do well on the section. It's purely reasoning and analysis from various texts provided. This is distorted in other sections due to requirement of strong content background (although one can make a case that synthesizing reasoning skills with strong background knowledge is basically what medicine is about --> this further reinforces the assertion that biology is the most important MCAT subsection).

We all have reasons for our "pet" sub-scores. I do not assert that high verbal (CARS) is necessarily more significant in admissions. I can say that high verbal students have been my most rewarding.

 

[Lawpy]

We all have reasons for our "pet" sub-scores. I do not assert that high verbal (CARS) is necessarily more significant in admissions. I can say that high verbal students have been my most rewarding.

Generally speaking, high subsection scores refer to 130+, right?

This way, the ideal applicant would be someone scoring 130+ in each subsections.

 

[gyngyn]

Generally speaking, high subsection scores refer to 130+, right?

12 and above on the old test.

 

[Lawpy]

12 and above on the old test.

Yep this makes sense. 12/12/12 = 36 and 129/129/129/129 = 516 = 35. So 129+ is probably a good ballpark.

Initially thought it would require a 523+/40+ to please all the adcoms!

 

[gyngyn]

Yep this makes sense. 12/12/12 = 36 and 129/129/129/129 = 516 = 35. So 129+ is probably a good ballpark.

Initially thought it would require a 523+/40+ to please all the adcoms!

After a certain point the scores are statistically identical (as I'm sure you realize...) and do not distinguish between candidiates.

 

[787593]

After a certain point the scores are statistically identical.

What point is that? 🙂

 

[gyngyn]

What point is that? 🙂

around the 98th percentile and above.

 

[787593]

around the 98th percentile and above.

Thanks!

 

[libertyyne]

around the 98th percentile and above.

Now I want to join cccupy AAMC in protest of the 2%

 

[787593]

Now I want to join cccupy AAMC in protest of the 2%

Ooooooh! 😀