Do you think anyone can do it?

[efle]

You need to understand algebra/symbolic manipulations well to score anywhere near decent on the MCAT. Do you really view the human population as binary, either disabled or all equivalently capable in brainpower?

It really isn't exaggerating to say you need above-average smarts to score top 1/1000th of the population sitting for the MCAT. Like I said, agree to disagree. How's your 42+ coming by the way? Or 527+ for you I suppose!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MSclerosis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds you like you don't believe in intelligence or biological determinism at all. Do you understand this is demonstrably incorrect?

Genetics are built-in. I do believe in genes, but I think that environment plays the most significant role (things like privilege, and the subsequent learned skills like discipline/hard-work). I also don't discount statistics. The world is inherently statistical, quantum and up. This is why luck/lottery will also play a role. These are factors beyond "natural" intelligence.

I know of somebody who is in medicine right now, who received a significant research scholarship only because the committee head's daughter had the same first name. Might have been Eleanor (it wasn't), but without that scholarship, she would not have gotten the chance to work at the university's top chemistry group in first-year summer. Now is this privilege or luck? TOP 3 applicants all had the same GPA (based solely on hard-numbers). Another story: there was a get-to-know-each-other event on the first-day of chemistry class when my best friend was selected from a giant lecture hall (random pick of student # using the computer). Best friend got to meet the profs and received the course textbook for free. He only had to show up. Is this privilege or luck? Now how about the Green Card / Diversity Lottery? With one, you need much lower MCAT scores/GPA. With the other, you only have like 60 schools to apply to.

On average, being born into the right social environment (privilege), statistical tail events (luck), and your decisions/actions with their results/consequences all influence your chance of admission. These are factors beyond your genetics. Although you cannot work on privilege or luck or your genes, you can improve on hard-work and discipline. This is why I am a firm believer in EDUCATION. Learned skills like perseverance must be more correlated with medical school success than genetic intelligence (and how would you measure genetic intelligence anyway?).

 

[ZedsDed]

Basically, the concept of innate intelligence is vastly exaggerated.

There are quite a few studies that say differently

 

[Lawpy]

You need to understand algebra/symbolic manipulations well to score anywhere near decent on the MCAT. Do you really view the human population as binary, either disabled or all equivalently capable in brainpower?

It really isn't exaggerating to say you need above-average smarts to score top 1/1000th of the population sitting for the MCAT. Like I said, agree to disagree. How's your 42+ coming by the way? Or 527+ for you I suppose!

For scoring a 10/127 on the sciences? Plenty of course. For scoring like a 7 or below? Not really. Again, I'm stressing consistent, motivated practice to break a below-average score. This isn't insurmountable.

It isn't single-factored, like I said previously lol. I stated that good test-taking skills, good mindset, and good luck were equally as important. Whether innate intelligence plays a role in test-taking skills is a different story, since many reports do indicate a connection. And yeah, I'll be happy to score a 42+ on the MCAT lol, but I'm just focused on cost-cutting measures.

There are quite a few studies that say differently

I mean yeah, genetics plays a role, just like it plays a role in everything. But environmental factors clearly play a much much greater role, but it gets murky and controversial there, leading to pretty unpleasant propositions supporting genetics and innate factor claims.

 

[ZedsDed]

Genetics are built-in. I do believe in genes, but I think that environment plays the most significant role (things like privilege, and the subsequent learned skills like discipline/hard-work).

Is this your personal opinion or do you have data to back it up? Because there is quite a lot of data to the contrary.

I know of somebody who is in medicine right now, who received a significant research scholarship only because the committee head's daughter had the same first name. Might have been Eleanor (it wasn't), but without that scholarship, she would not have gotten the chance to work at the university's top chemistry group in first-year summer. Now is this privilege or luck? Applicants had the same GPA (based solely on hard-numbers). Another story: there was a get-to-know-each-other event on the first-day of chemistry class when my best friend was selected from a giant lecture hall (random pick of student # using the computer). Best friend got to meet the profs and received the course textbook for free. He only had to show up. How about the Green Card / Diversity Lottery? Is this privilege or luck? With one, you need much lower MCAT scores/GPA.

You said you believe in statistics. Well those subgroups are extremely small populations that are statistically insignificant outliers. The vast majority of students get into college based on grades and test scores. Their performance in said exams and classes will vary depending on intelligence, work ethic, drive, personality, and yes, environment.

 

[Lawpy]

Aw man, this thread is slowly collapsing into that infamous IQ and MCAT thread. I will agree to disagree with @efle on this one and use the following:

 

[ZedsDed]

I mean yeah, genetics plays a role, just like it plays a role in everything. But environmental factors clearly play a much much greater role, but it gets murky and controversial there, leading to pretty unpleasant propositions supporting genetics and innate factor claims.

This is quite a statement, which seems to run counter to the direction science is moving in regards to the study of what "intelligence" is. Why does the idea of innate intelligence bother you? It used to bother me, until I read Steven Pinker.

 

[ZedsDed]

Aw man, this thread is slowly collapsing into that infamous IQ and MCAT thread. I will agree to disagree with @efle on this one and use the following:

Haha, Ok, have a good one man. I don't blame you for wanting out

 

[efle]

Yes, you really do need to understand algebra/symbol manipulation to score more than half the questions correct...

Sure, it isn't the only factor that can contribute to a score. It is necessary though. Standardized practice, good vibes and lucky guessing simply doesn't make for 99.9th percentile for average joe.

I have to ask why you think only 1/1000 manage such scores. People practice a lot, many feel confident/positive, and many get lucky with their guessing. An insignificant minority hit 42+. Why?

 

[efle]

I also have to wonder if Lawper thinks degrees of unlocked potentials are what make some people taller, darker skinned, sexier, etc

 

[mehc012]

I think CARS now weeds out those who could not get into medical school. The rote memorization is gone for those who could easily do that; now one must think AND have the content down. Had my physics professor this past summer tell me how absolutely frustrated he was with the younger people who do not, will not, try to, think.

I'm not sure what he was inferring to or how to strengthen or weaken that with an analogy or detail statement.

You already had to do that to score well on the MCAT. Despite all the emphasis people put on content review, it never was at its core a content-focused exam. It was a critical thinking test with some content thresholds that had to be met before that could come into play.

 

[altblue]

The average Joe can't get As and Bs in hard science courses. Most people don't even get an associates, and the difficulty of college level courses is surely a factor there.

Things like medicine and engineering are difficult, competitive and coveted for their pay T. he spoils go to those who not only work hard but are good at Science.

 

[efle]

You already had to do that to score well on the MCAT. Despite all the emphasis people put on content review, it never was at its core a content-focused exam. It was a critical thinking test with some content thresholds that had to be met before that could come into play.

Shush, let the younguns think their test is way harder on the brains and all we had to do was memorize

The average Joe can't get As and Bs in hard science courses. Most people don't even get an associates, and the difficulty of college level courses is surely a factor there.

Things like medicine and engineering are difficult and high paying. The spoils go to those who not only work hard but are good at Science.

There are a good chunk of people with 3.8+ GPAs and abysmal MCATs! There was even somebody posting here recently with a 4.00 as a biochem major and a 21

 

[altblue]

Shush, let the younguns think their test is way harder on the brains and all we had to do was memorize


There are a good chunk of people with 3.8+ GPAs and abysmal MCATs! There was even somebody posting here recently with a 4.00 as a biochem major and a 21

I can't really speak for the mcat bc I haven't taken it (so behind...), but you're assuming the mcat is a stand in for an IQ score? Given the context of your other posts as well

Sent from my phone

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Shush, let the younguns think their test is way harder on the brains and all we had to do was memorize


There are a good chunk of people with 3.8+ GPAs and abysmal MCATs! There was even somebody posting here recently with a 4.00 as a biochem major and a 21

Anecdotal reference maybe but everyone I know who took both said 2015 was more difficult in terms of reasoning/problem solving and length

And old mcat tested these abilities too

 

[efle]

Anecdotal reference maybe but everyone I know who took both said 2015 was more difficult in terms of reasoning/problem solving and length

And old mcat tested these abilities too

It's percentile based. Unless their peers got smarter or they were scoring 45s before, nothing is harder (beyond maybe more time consuming, depending how much the de-emphasis on content is balanced by the added length)

 

[Glazedonutlove]

It's percentile based. Unless their peers got smarter or they were scoring 45s before, nothing is harder (beyond maybe more time consuming, depending how much the de-emphasis on content is balanced by the added length)

Not talking about the scoring. The actual exam in terms of length and added stuff and format

 

[efle]

Not talking about the scoring. The actual exam in terms of length and added stuff and format

the length I do believe would be a killer!

 

[Glazedonutlove]

the length I do believe would be a killer!

It was

 

[efle]

I can't really speak for the mcat bc I haven't taken it (so behind...), but you're assuming the mcat is a stand in for an IQ score? Given the context of your other posts as well

Sent from my phone

You currently preppin?

I think both studying/effort and brains are necessary, so not quite an IQ test, but certainly closer to an intelligence metric than the GPA which in many cases appears to be purely a studying/effort metric

 

[MSclerosis]

Is this your personal opinion or do you have data to back it up? Because there is quite a lot of data to the contrary.

I can tell you that my best friend in grade 3 would have loved to go to America to pursue medicine. In fact, he would have loved to pursue ANY education. He dropped out IN GRADE 3 and became a SHOE-SHINER. On the street. 8 years old. He was a fast runner and had done well in school. Do you think genes will have helped him through this trauma? The kid could get into Harvard with this kind of life experience, but he won't. He was good in school, but got screwed. His family was dirt poor and his father had died. Tell this 8 year old hard-working kid that he can make it to an American MD school if he works hard enough and uses his intelligence. Ya, right. What are his chances? Not applicable.

If I look at a 100% white, homogeneous population of the same race, living in a medium-sized city with 100% middle class inhabitants and no corruption, then yes, "genetic intelligence" may play a role in determining who becomes the mayor. He will be the top achiever of the MENSA test, the sole criterion for the selection process.

You said you believe in statistics. Well those subgroups are extremely small populations that are statistically insignificant outliers. The vast majority of students get into college based on grades and test scores. Their performance in said exams and classes will vary depending on intelligence, work ethic, drive, personality, and yes, environment.

Guess what? How many people get into medical school? There are over 300 million people documented in the United States. How many doctors? What is the percentage of people who make it through the system to become doctors? How many would have liked to become doctors but chose alternate pathways? The numbers are statistically significant. If you look at international high-school leavers exams, there is a reason why only top 0.1% of applicants are able to select medicine. In reality, a much higher percentage would have liked to study it. How would my childhood friend afford cram school and private lessons to enter the top 0.1% of test-takers? Do you think that he will be able to afford the elite cram schools when they charge twice the minimum monthly salary to attend? He would be lucky to get into any cram school, and would be lucky to clear the minimum % for admission into ANY university program, let alone medicine. With those circumstances, guess what? He won't be getting in, no matter how "naturally intelligent" the kid is. He will work hard all his life, for a minimum wage salary, renting in a slum.

The village kid who makes it because of his "natural" intelligence alone through self-education to a US med school is the real outlier. There are millions like him currently pouring into Europe, but at best, he will constitute 0.001% of his MD class. He would be the guy/girl who smuggled himself out of war-torn Afghanistan at age 9 and made it to America on a fake passport, passing through ridiculous insurmountable barriers that no American kid ever had to know about or had to endure. The rest of his classmates will be privileged (and I don't mean this in a bad way), lucky, and most importantly, hard-working (90%). But "natural" intelligence alone is not enough. Being smart, the kid might have made it to the Taliban or have worked for the corrupt Afghan Government, but through hard-work, and calculated risks, he/she was able to achieve beyond privilege/luck. The majority of premeds do not have this type of life story. The majority of premeds will have a Western Education and will have done well as a result of their decades being born and raised in Western society, in good families, in good neighborhoods, and with good opportunities. This isn't "natural" intelligence. It's accumulated lessons beyond genetics.

Speaking of extremely small subgroups of people, physicians are already an extremely small percentage of the population. MD/PhDs are even a smaller subgroup. In a crowded premed lecture hall, if on average 10% of the class will make it into medicine, and if on average, one person wins a sheer luck event at securing a prestigious medical research position, then by sheer luck, nearly 10% of the MD/PhD program at the medical school will consist of lucky people like him/her with prestigious medical research positions (which tend to accumulate). Repeat for privilege. Advantage accumulates and builds upon itself. This is why graduates during a recession tend to do more poorly on average, despite having same IQ as their non-recession counterparts.

Luckily, the majority of the class will contain hard working, disciplined, and highly educated individuals. Nobody asks for "natural" intelligence in MD applications. Instead, they assess the whole applicant, including their life story, their highs and their lows.

 

[ZedsDed]

I can tell you that my best friend in grade 3 would have loved to go to America to pursue medicine. In fact, he would have loved to pursue ANY education. He dropped out IN GRADE 3 and became a SHOE-SHINER. On the street. 8 years old. He was a fast runner and had done well in school. Do you think genes will have helped him through this trauma? The kid could get into Harvard with this kind of life experience, but he won't. He was good in school, but got screwed. His family was dirt poor and his father had died. Tell this 8 year old hard-working kid that he can make it to an American MD school if he works hard enough and uses his intelligence. Ya, right. What are his chances? Not applicable.

If I look at a 100% white, homogeneous population of the same race, living in a medium-sized city with 100% middle class inhabitants and no corruption, then yes, "genetic intelligence" may play a role in determining who becomes the mayor. He will be the top achiever of the MENSA test, the sole criterion for the selection process.



Guess what? How many people get into medical school? There are over 300 million people documented in the United States. How many doctors? What is the percentage of people who make it through the system to become doctors? How many would have liked to become doctors but chose alternate pathways? The numbers are statistically significant. If you look at international high-school leavers exams, there is a reason why only top 0.1% of applicants are able to select medicine. In reality, a much higher percentage would have liked to study it. How would my childhood friend afford cram school and private lessons to enter the top 0.1% of test-takers? Do you think that he will be able to afford the elite cram schools when they charge twice the minimum monthly salary to attend? He would be lucky to get into any cram school, and would be lucky to clear the minimum % for admission into ANY university program, let alone medicine. With those circumstances, guess what? He won't be getting in, no matter how "naturally intelligent" the kid is. He will work hard all his life, for a minimum wage salary, renting in a slum.

The village kid who makes it because of his "natural" intelligence alone through self-education to a US med school is the real outlier. There are millions like him currently pouring into Europe, but at best, he will constitute 0.001% of his MD class. He would be the guy/girl who smuggled himself out of war-torn Afghanistan at age 9 and made it to America on a fake passport, passing through ridiculous insurmountable barriers that no American kid ever had to know about or had to endure. The rest of his classmates will be privileged (and I don't mean this in a bad way), lucky, and most importantly, hard-working (90%). But "natural" intelligence alone is not enough. Being smart, the kid might have made it to the Taliban or have worked for the corrupt Afghan Government, but through hard-work, and calculated risks, he/she was able to achieve beyond privilege/luck. The majority of premeds do not have this type of life story. The majority of premeds will have a Western Education and will have done well as a result of their decades being born and raised in Western society, in good families, in good neighborhoods, and with good opportunities. This isn't "natural" intelligence. It's accumulated lessons beyond genetics.

Speaking of extremely small subgroups of people, physicians are already an extremely small percentage of the population. MD/PhDs are even a smaller subgroup. In a crowded premed lecture hall, if on average 10% of the class will make it into medicine, and if on average, one person wins a sheer luck event at securing a prestigious medical research position, then by sheer luck, nearly 10% of the MD/PhD program at the medical school will consist of lucky people like him/her with prestigious medical research positions (which tend to accumulate). Repeat for privilege. Advantage accumulates and builds upon itself. This is why early earners which graduate during a recession tend to do more poorly on average, despite having same IQ.

Luckily, the majority of the class will contain hard working, disciplined, and highly educated individuals. Nobody asks for "natural" intelligence in MD applications. Instead, they assess the whole applicant, including their life story, their highs and their lows.

Lemme get back to you, I needs me some shut-eye.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Lemme get back to you, I needs me some shut-eye.

Lol he typed a novel

 

[mehc012]

I can't really speak for the mcat bc I haven't taken it (so behind...), but you're assuming the mcat is a stand in for an IQ score? Given the context of your other posts as well

Sent from my phone

I personally see it a mix of 3 question types:
- Basic content Qs
- Critical thinking Qs which also require some piece of basic content to answer (majority)
- Critical thinking Qs which require advanced content mastery to answer

If you're weak on basic content, you do poorly in all of these categories. These are your catastrophically low scorers.
Once you master basic content, you will get most/all of the first group right. However, the number of Group B questions you get right will depend on your test-taking ability (call it intelligence or IQ if you want, I think 'test taking ability' is more precise...it is correlated with intelligence, but can also be practiced. You can also be intelligent, but suck at tests, which wouldn't help you here)
If you truly master the content and have top-end test-taking skills (TTS), you will score well on the third type of question.

Obviously various levels of content mastery and TTS give you all of the nice gradients in between, but with these types of questions, they can design the test to both demonstrate preparation and critical thinking.

 

[efle]

I can tell you that my best friend in grade 3 would have loved to go to America to pursue medicine. In fact, he would have loved to pursue ANY education. He dropped out IN GRADE 3 and became a SHOE-SHINER. On the street. 8 years old. He was a fast runner and had done well in school. Do you think genes will have helped him through this trauma? The kid could get into Harvard with this kind of life experience, but he won't. He was good in school, but got screwed. His family was dirt poor and his father had died. Tell this 8 year old hard-working kid that he can make it to an American MD school if he works hard enough and uses his intelligence. Ya, right. What are his chances? Not applicable.

If I look at a 100% white, homogeneous population of the same race, living in a medium-sized city with 100% middle class inhabitants and no corruption, then yes, "genetic intelligence" may play a role in determining who becomes the mayor. He will be the top achiever of the MENSA test, the sole criterion for the selection process.



Guess what? How many people get into medical school? There are over 300 million people documented in the United States. How many doctors? What is the percentage of people who make it through the system to become doctors? How many would have liked to become doctors but chose alternate pathways? The numbers are statistically significant. If you look at international high-school leavers exams, there is a reason why only top 0.1% of applicants are able to select medicine. In reality, a much higher percentage would have liked to study it. How would my childhood friend afford cram school and private lessons to enter the top 0.1% of test-takers? Do you think that he will be able to afford the elite cram schools when they charge twice the minimum monthly salary to attend? He would be lucky to get into any cram school, and would be lucky to clear the minimum % for admission into ANY university program, let alone medicine. With those circumstances, guess what? He won't be getting in, no matter how "naturally intelligent" the kid is. He will work hard all his life, for a minimum wage salary, renting in a slum.

The village kid who makes it because of his "natural" intelligence alone through self-education to a US med school is the real outlier. There are millions like him currently pouring into Europe, but at best, he will constitute 0.001% of his MD class. He would be the guy/girl who smuggled himself out of war-torn Afghanistan at age 9 and made it to America on a fake passport, passing through ridiculous insurmountable barriers that no American kid ever had to know about or had to endure. The rest of his classmates will be privileged (and I don't mean this in a bad way), lucky, and most importantly, hard-working (90%). But "natural" intelligence alone is not enough. Being smart, the kid might have made it to the Taliban or have worked for the corrupt Afghan Government, but through hard-work, and calculated risks, he/she was able to achieve beyond privilege/luck. The majority of premeds do not have this type of life story. The majority of premeds will have a Western Education and will have done well as a result of their decades being born and raised in Western society, in good families, in good neighborhoods, and with good opportunities. This isn't "natural" intelligence. It's accumulated lessons beyond genetics.

Speaking of extremely small subgroups of people, physicians are already an extremely small percentage of the population. MD/PhDs are even a smaller subgroup. In a crowded premed lecture hall, if on average 10% of the class will make it into medicine, and if on average, one person wins a sheer luck event at securing a prestigious medical research position, then by sheer luck, nearly 10% of the MD/PhD program at the medical school will consist of lucky people like him/her with prestigious medical research positions (which tend to accumulate). Repeat for privilege. Advantage accumulates and builds upon itself. This is why early earners which graduate during a recession tend to do more poorly on average, despite having same IQ.

Luckily, the majority of the class will contain hard working, disciplined, and highly educated individuals. Nobody asks for "natural" intelligence in MD applications. Instead, they assess the whole applicant, including their life story, their highs and their lows.

There is no data in here supporting an overall counterargument at all...nobody will deny that some bright minds (like yours and many others anecdotes) are denied their shot by the circumstances they are born into, but as was said previously the vast majority make it on brains and effort. Having lots of money to throw around does not transform a lazy stupid kid into a hardworking smart one. Some resources are necessary, and excessive resources are not sufficient.

 

[MSclerosis]

There is no data in here supporting an overall counterargument at all...nobody will deny that some bright minds (like yours and many others anecdotes) are denied their shot by the circumstances they are born into, but as was said previously the vast majority make it on brains and effort. Having lots of money to throw around does not transform a lazy stupid kid into a hardworking smart one. Some resources are necessary, and excessive resources are not sufficient.

OP had asked the following:
1)"Anything is possible" that's a phrase I'm sure we have all heard but is it actually true?
Yes it's true, but statistically unlikely.

2) I feel like there is a limit to who can actually enter medical school, the person imo needs to have some sort of "natural" intelligence.
People attribute standardized test performance as (a measure of) "natural" intelligence (or other way around). Using this correlation, it absolutely factors in. In reality, there are other, more important factors too. Personally, I believe privilege, sheer luck, and learned skills all play a role. The learned skills part is the most significant and should be the focus of premeds, because this is what we can influence and control. These are the experiences that will shape us. The rest matter, but we cannot change things that are innate/random/extenuating by nature.

3) Is it possible for anyone to get into medical school just by "studying hard"?
Yes, and no. It is necessary but not sufficient. Nothing is handed on a silver platter. You have to work and study hard to meet all of the requirements and pass through all of the screenings.

4) (I'm just bringing this up because my friend and I were talking and he was going on about how "stupid"people from our old school would never be able to do it etc)
Stupidity - by what definition? innate or through demonstrated idiotic actions without regard for consequences? or both? I believe that people can learn, and they can change. Others will disagree. I think there is hope, even for people who behave like *****s. I believe these people can be helped, but it would take serious will power and again, hard work.

These are my succinct answers. Off to sleep, I go.

Best of luck to fellow premeds on their essays and interviews!

 

[altblue]

You currently preppin?

I think both studying/effort and brains are necessary, so not quite an IQ test, but certainly closer to an intelligence metric than the GPA which in many cases appears to be purely a studying/effort metric

I wish, but I'm getting there.

I dunno, a lot of people don't grasp things like Calc, physics and orgo. A basic level of understanding (and yeah, intelligence/test taking ability) is usually necessary for an A grade in those courses

 

[altblue]

I think the guy with a 4.0 in Biochem and a 21 is still pretty smart, regardless of the score.

 

[IslandStyle808]

The MCAT is one of those exams that tests working memory/fluid intelligence. In other words, the ability to remember something quickly and apply it quickly (long term memory is a totally different talent). Also being able to put that new information with other new information to get to answer quickly as well. The USMLE I also believe test similarly, but has its differences (the reason why some people do well even with a low MCAT). In the end, these are not bench marks in determining who will make a good doctor (the thing we all want to be good at). They are nothing more than tools to assess the work ethic of a student.

I am one of those that believes we can't have it all (of course some people have it more than others). Sure all of us want the memory of Kim Peck or Solomon Shereshvsky, but there is a price to having such a memory. You lose the ability to discern what is important from what is not (i.e. the ability to prioritize information, meaning the ability to forget useless information). This is an important trait in the real world and the reason why there are not as many memorizers out there. To gain one skill, I do believe a person has to sacrifice another. Well, it was off topic, but just wanted to add the thought.

 

[JustintheDoctor]

OP had asked the following:
1)"Anything is possible" that's a phrase I'm sure we have all heard but is it actually true?
Yes it's true, but statistically unlikely.

2) I feel like there is a limit to who can actually enter medical school, the person imo needs to have some sort of "natural" intelligence.
People attribute standardized test performance as (a measure of) "natural" intelligence (or other way around). Using this correlation, it absolutely factors in. In reality, there are other, more important factors too. Personally, I believe privilege, sheer luck, and learned skills all play a role. The learned skills part is the most significant and should be the focus of premeds, because this is what we can influence and control. These are the experiences that will shape us. The rest matter, but we cannot change things that are innate/random/extenuating by nature.

3) Is it possible for anyone to get into medical school just by "studying hard"?
Yes, and no. It is necessary but not sufficient. Nothing is handed on a silver platter. You have to work and study hard to meet all of the requirements and pass through all of the screenings.

4) (I'm just bringing this up because my friend and I were talking and he was going on about how "stupid"people from our old school would never be able to do it etc)
Stupidity - by what definition? innate or through demonstrated idiotic actions without regard for consequences? or both? I believe that people can learn, and they can change. Others will disagree. I think there is hope, even for people who behave like *****s. I believe these people can be helped, but it would take serious will power and again, hard work.

These are my succinct answers. Off to sleep, I go.

Best of luck to fellow premeds on their essays and interviews!

By "stupidity" I guess like someone who never put any effort, didn't excel in any courses because of sheer laziness, or someone who lacks common sense. I put quotations both times because it's a broad term that is often misused.

 

[efle]

Laziness and stupidity are very different limiting factors
I think the MCAT is meant to assess more than just the work ethic / laziness component

 

[Psai]

The vast majority of people can't do it. They aren't smart enough or work hard enough. The thought that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it is a joke. Even some of the people who make it into medical school can't handle it. We have some examples on these forums and that's after they got into college, successfully made it through the prerequisite classes without getting weeded out, then did well enough on the mcat to even apply, then were among the 40% or so that finally made it in

People like to talk big and imagine that they could have been accepted and been successful. This idea is very prevalent among nps and pas. But not only is it hard to get in, it's hard to get through. The shift from college to medical school was very tough, it was like being on finals week every single day. I thought very hard about dropping out because i was having trouble keeping up with the pace of first semester and I'm probably in the top quartile of my class with good grades and excellent test scores

 

[getdown]

wow this thread quickly went down the crapper. In the end who really cares. If you get in you get in, if you don't you either try again or switch careers. Real intelligence comes from knowing when to move on.

 

[Ad2b]

It's impossible to do well on all subsections in the MCAT strictly through rote memorization. This has always been the case and has nothing to do with CARS/verbal, since the critical thinking skills needed to do well in CARS/verbal are different from those needed in the sciences.

I get what you're saying and slightly disagree with you. An ability to blab out facts does NOT = a good MCAT score.

My point - elusive as it appears to be - is that by reading the passage and understanding at some level what is written and then going to the questions and answering them diligently - not what you think AAMC wants but what it is - is critical and that comes from increasing the effectiveness on CARS.

For instance, knowing the CO2 ---> HCO3- pathway is awesome but applying it = points on the MCAT. That is CARS-like to me. The questions from that were hypoxia, Hb, differing altitudes and temperatures prompting different answers. Applying that pathway knowledge is more CARS like than rote memory.

I think we're mostly aligned

 

[Strudel19]

Haven't gotten in yet, so I'm uncomfortable with saying that anyone can do it. I do think that there is an obvious base-line level of intelligence, but hard work can get you almost anywhere.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

The MCAT is one of those exams that tests working memory/fluid intelligence. In other words, the ability to remember something quickly and apply it quickly (long term memory is a totally different talent). Also being able to put that new information with other new information to get to answer quickly as well. The USMLE I also believe test similarly, but has its differences (the reason why some people do well even with a low MCAT). In the end, these are not bench marks in determining who will make a good doctor (the thing we all want to be good at). They are nothing more than tools to assess the work ethic of a student.

I am one of those that believes we can't have it all (of course some people have it more than others). Sure all of us want the memory of Kim Peck or Solomon Shereshvsky, but there is a price to having such a memory. You lose the ability to discern what is important from what is not (i.e. the ability to prioritize information, meaning the ability to forget useless information). This is an important trait in the real world and the reason why there are not as many memorizers out there. To gain one skill, I do believe a person has to sacrifice another. Well, it was off topic, but just wanted to add the thought.

No they test everything you learned up to that point..

 

[medic86]

I agree with @efle here.

@Lawper, you must have lived a very sheltered life if you've never met a person who is too dumb to tie their own shoes, let alone study to a high 20 MCAT score through sheer hard work and determination.

 

[Holmwood]

I agree with @efle here.

@Lawper, you must have lived a very sheltered life if you've never met a person who is too dumb to tie their own shoes, let alone study to a high 20 MCAT score through sheer hard work and determination.

Woah.

 

[IslandStyle808]

No they test everything you learned up to that point..

You still have to study for it.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

You still have to study for it.

I'm aware
But the main thing they are testing is knowledge/application not work ethic. One would hope that by med school you should have developed good work ethic and grades reflect that as well

 

[Lawpy]

I agree with @efle here.

@Lawper, you must have lived a very sheltered life if you've never met a person who is too dumb to tie their own shoes, let alone study to a high 20 MCAT score through sheer hard work and determination.

Welp. So much for the get out of jail free card.

Your comment is exactly the reason why i object to the notion of innate intelligence. I am aware of everyone not being born exactly the same, but to dismiss people for being incapable of accomplishing a simple task just because of genetics is unnecessarily harsh and excluding.

But really, i'm out of jail now so try to avoid pushing me back in with unwarranted comments reprimanding people and punishing my optimism for being too sheltered. I am well too familiar with how the real world works, but i'm not the type of guy to abandon hope with "well-below-average brains" simply because of their genetics.

 

[Doudline]

There are two components here:

1. nature versus nurture;
2. competitiveness of medical school admissions.

Anyone who reaches college can get a 23 on the MCAT and a decent GPA. It already eliminates a bunch of people, yet this elimination is absolutely undeniable. Tabula rasa is a myth. And, as was said before, intelligence isn't only concerned with extremes - aka you are either clinically ******ed, average, or a genius. It's a spectrum, and many fall on the lower end. These people will have a hard time (though perhaps not an impossible time).

That being said, medical admissions aren't competitive based on actual "difficulty" (however you define it) of the profession, or the intellectual acumen it requires, but on desirability in a market economy. If reimbursement for medical acts was cut by 90% tomorrow, you can bet that the average stats for matriculates would drop from the 40th to the bottom floor, and medical schools wouldn't have the luxury to refuse any student, really.

It doesn't mean that medical school isn't difficult, but that difficulty is a secondary consideration.

Therefore, claiming that the vast majority of students could get into based on the lowest actual standards is faulty reasoning. Standards are just that... they change -sometimes wildly- with time, and rarely take roots in tangible variables at the core of the program/profession.

"Anyone" could become a physician under the right -economic, social, political, etc- circumstances. (Though it's unrealistic to bet on it.)

 

[altblue]

Welp. So much for the get out of jail free card.

Your comment is exactly the reason why i object to the notion of innate intelligence. I am aware of everyone not being born exactly the same, but to dismiss people for being incapable of accomplishing a simple task just because of genetics is unnecessarily harsh and excluding.

But really, i'm out of jail now so try to avoid pushing me back in with unwarranted comments reprimanding people and punishing my optimism for being too sheltered. I am well too familiar with how the real world works, but i'm not the type of guy to abandon hope with "well-below-average brains" simply because of their genetics.

We shouldn't be unecessarily dichotomizing the issue into two things: malleable habits or soft factors like hard work and "innate" factors like intelligence. You have to take into account multiple things like innate intelligence, environment, study habits and personality. Realistically to do well on in college science courses and standardized testing you'll want a strong, overall-positive combination of these factors.

Also If you're of below average intelligence, you may struggle in college level science courses no matter how much work you put in. If you're highly intelligent but don't put the work in, you might get bad grades anyway...

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Are we really having a nature vs nurture debate. This debate ended a while ago. The answer is both play a role to different extent in different aspects.
@Lawper I agree with you that hard work can make up for any "natural gifted intelligence" but to an extent.

 

[Dr.Sticks]

Getting a perfect MCAT doesn't make you smart..
Standardized testing is a horrible way to measure intelligence..
Then again the what smart actually is, is a very subjective thing. To me intelligence is applying book knowledge to the real world.. So someone who gets a perfect MCAT could be very book smart, but a total ***** when it comes to the real world. (not saying they are, just creating an example)
Natural intelligence is where people are both book smart, and street smart. Most people are street smart but not book smart, and a lot of smart people are book smart but not street smart.
Both types of smarts are LEARNED. You become street smart/book smart through the way you lead your life the day you open your eyes.. There is a reason nerds have the stereotype of being book worms, who do nothing but stay home and read...
There is a reason a child generally born in a blue collar family will become blue collar, and not move up the socio-economic ladder.. There is a reason why kids born to engineers/doctors often become high class white collar professionals.. You are a product of your environment
Your intelligence is based off the life you lived..

For example; I started reading at around 3 and half or so, and was reading chapter books in kindergarten. Is it because I am naturally smart? Nope
It is because my parents went to the library got a bunch of books and forced me to read. As a result I was the best reader in my class, always scored at the top.
In my math I wasn't the best though.. I did well, but wasn't outstanding or brilliant except in trig I rocked at trig.. Anyways, so I wasn't the best.. Why? As a child I was largely driven to read/write and math was not a major focus.. Well basic math was huge focus, but at Algebra my parents could not do much for me. Largely didn't remember/did not know.
OF COURSE.. This is all hypothesis.. I don't know of any actual peer reviewed research .. Perhaps the one research can't remember the name, but a scientist had a group of high IQ children many led normal lives, and did nothing special.. can't recall title..
THis would make for some great research.. Hey idea!

Anyways..
The summary of this post is this:
You are a product of your environment, the way you are raised, the home you grow up in, how hard you are driven all are factors in determining your intelligence.
There is a reason why Asians are very high achieving in general.. Culturally their parents set EXTREMELY high expectations of them..
"You better be a doctor or engineer or else I'm going to disown you" "Get a B and I will kick you out the house"(not necessarily true, rather a stereotype by the standards are high)
On the other hand many URMs grow up in economically disadvantaged households where the parents have so many issues and they are in a bad area where external factors cause their child to fall behind academically and often not achieve any academic success.

Now a question.. Which kid is more likely to succeed? I bet a 100 dollars child two, provided child two is not a believer in Ds get degrees and parties his/her life away.
Child 1:In HS at graduation I saw many kinds of youth.. two of the most common..
"Work, that's all I can do and what my parents wants me to do i gotta move out"
then this:
Child 2: "College, my parents will let me stay at home and they want me to focus on my studies"

 

[Gurby]

The fact is ones sex, race, or economic status historically has never limited anyone from great achievement.

 

[efle]

Getting a perfect MCAT doesn't make you smart..
Standardized testing is a horrible way to measure intelligence..
Then again the what smart actually is, is a very subjective thing. To me intelligence is applying book knowledge to the real world.. So someone who gets a perfect MCAT could be very book smart, but a total ***** when it comes to the real world. (not saying they are, just creating an example)
Natural intelligence is where people are both book smart, and street smart. Most people are street smart but not book smart, and a lot of smart people are book smart but not street smart.
Both types of smarts are LEARNED. You become street smart/book smart through the way you lead your life the day you open your eyes.. There is a reason nerds have the stereotype of being book worms, who do nothing but stay home and read...
There is a reason a child generally born in a blue collar family will become blue collar, and not move up the socio-economic ladder.. There is a reason why kids born to engineers/doctors often become high class white collar professionals.. You are a product of your environment
Your intelligence is based off the life you lived..

For example; I started reading at around 3 and half or so, and was reading chapter books in kindergarten. Is it because I am naturally smart? Nope
It is because my parents went to the library got a bunch of books and forced me to read. As a result I was the best reader in my class, always scored at the top.
In my math I wasn't the best though.. I did well, but wasn't outstanding or brilliant except in trig I rocked at trig.. Anyways, so I wasn't the best.. Why? As a child I was largely driven to read/write and math was not a major focus.. Well basic math was huge focus, but at Algebra my parents could not do much for me. Largely didn't remember/did not know.
OF COURSE.. This is all hypothesis.. I don't know of any actual peer reviewed research .. Perhaps the one research can't remember the name, but a scientist had a group of high IQ children many led normal lives, and did nothing special.. can't recall title..
THis would make for some great research.. Hey idea!

Anyways..
The summary of this post is this:
You are a product of your environment, the way you are raised, the home you grow up in, how hard you are driven all are factors in determining your intelligence.
There is a reason why Asians are very high achieving in general.. Culturally their parents set EXTREMELY high expectations of them..
"You better be a doctor or engineer or else I'm going to disown you" "Get a B and I will kick you out the house"(not necessarily true, rather a stereotype by the standards are high)
On the other hand many URMs grow up in economically disadvantaged households where the parents have so many issues and they are in a bad area where external factors cause their child to fall behind academically and often not achieve any academic success.

Now a question.. Which kid is more likely to succeed? I bet a 100 dollars child two, provided child two is not a believer in Ds get degrees and parties his/her life away.
Child 1:In HS at graduation I saw many kinds of youth.. two of the most common..
"Work, that's all I can do and what my parents wants me to do i gotta move out"
then this:
Child 2: "College, my parents will let me stay at home and they want me to focus on my studies"

Oh you poor naive idealist. There are massive differences in brain power between individuals and you do need a sharp mind to get a perfect MCAT/SAT/LSAT etc. Like I said before high rate for false negative, but not false positive

 

[altblue]

Oh you poor naive idealist. There are massive differences in brain power between individuals and you do need a sharp mind to get a perfect MCAT/SAT/LSAT etc. Like I said before high rate for false negative, but not false positive

Lol, idealism. I just think a lot of smart people don't realize that things come to them easier than for others.

 

[Dr.Sticks]

Oh you poor naive idealist. There are massive differences in brain power between individuals and you do need a sharp mind to get a perfect MCAT/SAT/LSAT etc. Like I said before high rate for false negative, but not false positive

People are stupid by their own choice. I will stand by that.. and it's a cultural thing too..
Generally stupid people are closed minded, aren't very goal driven, aren't overly aggressive in getting what they want, and tend to not think of the consequences ahead of time/think of the future.

Generally smart people are very open minded, are very goal driven, and are highly aggressive in seeking out opportunity, and plan the future.

Heck, I'm a college freshman and I am already planning on saving for retirement.. Statistically if I save early I'll retire a millionaire..

 

[efle]

People are stupid by their own choice. I will stand by that.. and it's a cultural thing too..
Generally stupid people are closed minded, aren't very goal driven, aren't overly aggressive in getting what they want, and tend to not think of the consequences ahead of time/think of the future.

Generally smart people are very open minded, are very goal driven, and are highly aggressive in seeking out opportunity, and plan the future.

Heck, I'm a college freshman and I am already planning on saving for retirement.. Statistically if I save early I'll retire a millionaire..

No, there really are some people who are normal kids in every way and yet some breeze through school while others never quite get the hang of using letters and symbols in math. Its not about effort or willingness - many people are infuriated by their struggles where others have no issues, seek help and pour time into it and still barely pass, if that. Not all people have equal potential and the stupid do not all choose to be such.