Do you really have to be smart to do well on the MCAT?

[Columbia09]

Or can you just do well on it by working hard?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[postbacpremed87]

Or can you just do well on it by working hard?

Like everything in life it is a spectrum....a certain amount of intelligence and work is required from everyone. There is certainly a positive correlation between both of these metrics and your MCAT score.

 

[deleted480308]

Or can you just do well on it by working hard?

it depends on what you mean by "well". It's like asking if you have to have talent to do well in a mile run. If well is a 7min/mile, you can probably work hard. But you aren't running a 4min/mile without some genetic help.

I believe anyone who truly wants it enough can score in the 20's...getting into the 30's takes some natural ability with that hard work

 

[Temperature101]

it depends on what you mean by "well". It's like asking if you have to have talent to do well in a mile run. If well is a 7min/mile, you can probably work hard. But you aren't running a 4min/mile without some genetic help.

I believe anyone who truly wants it enough can score in the 20's...getting into the 30's takes some natural ability with that hard work

Agree to some extent, but it seems like SDN makes people believe anyone can score 30+ in that test if they study hard and smart enough, which is bogus... There is a level of IQ that one has to have to score 30+ in that test. However, I don't know what that level of intelligence is....

 

[cerno]

I think intelligence would start to "take over", so to speak, at scores in the top percentiles (36+), assuming hard work was also put in.

That being said, I think verbal would be the one that would limit you most based on intelligence. It is hard to improve based on practice alone (in a reasonable timeframe of preparation), especially in a short period of time.

 

[inycepoo]

I think intelligence would start to "take over", so to speak, at scores in the top percentiles (36+), assuming hard work was also put in.

That being said, I think verbal would be the one that would limit you most based on intelligence. It is hard to improve based on practice alone (in a reasonable timeframe of preparation), especially in a short period of time.

Really? I've found the complete opposite to be true. There's no outside knowledge required, hence no better way to get better than consistent practice. My verbal scores (8/9 --> 12/13) have skyrocketed in a month due to consistent practice of passages, and I don't believe I'm any more intelligent than I was before. It's all strategy and BS. Or maybe I underestimate my "critical thinking" skills, whatever the hell that means.

Agree with the 36+ thing though. Also, don't forget about luck.

 

[onedirection]

If I were to tell you yes and you lacked intelligence...then what? Do you just give up?

Isn't it better for people to assume that intelligence has nothing to do with how you do...that way you actually go after it

 

[cerno]

Really? I've found the complete opposite to be true. There's no outside knowledge required, hence no better way to get better than consistent practice. My verbal scores (8/9 --> 12/13) have skyrocketed in a month due to consistent practice of passages, and I don't believe I'm any more intelligent than I was before. It's all strategy and BS. Or maybe I underestimate my "critical thinking" skills, whatever the hell that means.

Agree with the 36+ thing though. Also, don't forget about luck.

I would consider yourself quite lucky - VR is often the limiting subscore. What I was trying to get at is those with the most "intelligence" have the capacity and potential to improve most in that section with practice. I've heard of many stories of people falling into a deadzone between 10-12 where they see little to no improvement even after months of practice passages.

And like you said, there's no outside knowledge required, hence why I think it requires the most innate "intelligence"

 

[AChE]

Really? I've found the complete opposite to be true. There's no outside knowledge required, hence no better way to get better than consistent practice. My verbal scores (8/9 --> 12/13) have skyrocketed in a month due to consistent practice of passages, and I don't believe I'm any more intelligent than I was before. It's all strategy and BS. Or maybe I underestimate my "critical thinking" skills, whatever the hell that means.

Agree with the 36+ thing though. Also, don't forget about luck.

What did you do specifically to see such an improvement in your VR score in a month? (Other than practice). I'm in the same boat.

 

[inycepoo]

What did you do specifically to see such an improvement in your VR score in a month? (Other than practice). I'm in the same boat.

I felt it was mostly rust from the days of SAT and APs, when reading comprehension was hell but I got acclimated to it. I'm a double major in political science as well, so I guess I read more often than the average science major premed since my daily coursework requires it. That along with papers on an almost weekly basis also definitely help with speed and comprehension as well.

I have no strategy. Read passage once word by word through. Go back as necessary for the questions (I go back for almost every question). 8 minute limit per passage. -shrugs-

 

[inycepoo]

I would consider yourself quite lucky - VR is often the limiting subscore. What I was trying to get at is those with the most "intelligence" have the capacity and potential to improve most in that section with practice. I've heard of many stories of people falling into a deadzone between 10-12 where they see little to no improvement even after months of practice passages.

And like you said, there's no outside knowledge required, hence why I think it requires the most innate "intelligence"

The deadzone is probably more due to the scale than anything else. 3 wrong gets you a 12 on most iterations because there are people scoring really high on VR but not necessarily so on the sciences. 3 wrong on PS/BS is easily a 14. Going from 4 wrong to 1 wrong is really hard with luck involved, so I think that may be the reason.