Does a bad MCAT mean you can't be a good doctor?

[AnaMaria777]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm posing a very serious question to all readers:


Do you think MCAT performance is a true indicator of intelligence/future potential?


I can't understand how or why really bright people end up with sucky MCAT scores, thus completely destroying their chances of getting into med school.


My best friend (who just happens to be one of the smartest people I know) scored a 21P on his June '08 MCAT. The poor fella is simply inconsolable.

In short, I'm sick and tired of seeing smart people with a genuine interest in medicine get screwed because of poor MCAT scores. Why can't admissions committees see beyond the numbers? A bad MCAT score doesn't mean a person is stupid, can't perform academically, or that they won't make awesome doctors!

Meanwhile, arrogant buttholes who probably don't give 2 sh*ts about the sick/injured seem to have no problems getting in…

Sorry folks, I just had to get this off my chest!

 

[pamolive]

I'm posing a very serious question to all readers:


Do you think MCAT performance is a true indicator of intelligence/future potential?


I can't understand how or why really bright people end up with sucky MCAT scores, thus completely destroying their chances of getting into med school.


My best friend (who just happens to be one of the smartest people I know) scored a 21P on his June ’08 MCAT. The poor fella is simply inconsolable.

In short, I'm sick and tired of seeing smart people with a genuine interest in medicine get screwed because of poor MCAT scores. Why can’t admissions committees see beyond the numbers? A bad MCAT score doesn’t mean a person is stupid, can’t perform academically, or that they won't make awesome doctors!

Meanwhile, arrogant buttholes who probably don’t give 2 sh*ts about the sick/injured seem to have no problems getting in…

Sorry folks, I just had to get this off my chest!

That's a huge problem, not just with medical admissions, but with all schools (including undergrad). This is why there's so much controversy surrounding standardized testing. I don't think that MCAT scores correlate in any way to what type of physician someone will be. You really learn how to be a physician in your residency, not in the classroom, and if you're not passionate about what you're doing you're going to be a terrible physician regardless of your MCAT score or grades.

This is one of the pros of Osteopathic Medical schools. They are more willing to overlook a low MCAT or low GPA if you have excellent EC's/recommendations. I think they understand a little more that it really isn't all about the numbers.

Tell your friend not to worry, plenty of people have gotten into med school with a 21. He can always retake it. It's not the end of the world.

 

[ShyRem]

Not everyone is cut out for medical school. It's very easy to second guess when you haven't been where you want to be.

I agree about scores not being everything. I think looking at just the bottom line numbers is wrong. But there needs to be some kind of minimum standard... and frankly I think a median MCAT is a reasonable minimum. Once an applicant meets the minimum standard, however, I think that scores shouldn't matter anymore and applicants should be evaluated on other factors.

 

[heyjack70]

I would question how well your friend prepared for the MCAT. It is definitely necessary to study. I would recommend the use of practice questions that come with detailed explanations of the correct answer and all incorrect choices.

This test is covering subject matter that most of us learned over 4 years of undergrad. It is impossible to go in without a good deal of preparation and expect to do well.

 

[fastdude400]

I agree that low scores are frustrating, but the MCAT serves a purpose. Though not quite in med school yet (1 month!), med school is full of standardized exams that you are required to pass to become a doctor. If the student is unable to perform successfully on one standardized exam (the MCAT), why should they believe that he/she will suddenly be able to excel at standardized exams in med school?

I understand what you're saying about caring people scoring low on the MCAT and thus having their possibilities limited, but its not as though everyone who does score high is a complete a$$hole. Scoring high and being a caring person are not inversely proportional to each other.

I'm not trying to be a downer. Everyone hates the MCAT. But its there for a reason.

 

[ShyRem]

Now on another application -type note, wouldn't it be nice to have a "match" for medical school where on one day all acceptances and financial aid packages are given out and the applicant gets like 4 days to make ONE choice? I'm dreaming. But it certainly would cut down on the waitlist angst. Should do that around February 15 or so, then second round of acceptances could go out February 25, third round March 10, etc. Everyone should then know where they're going by April 1 at the latest.

I'm dreaming here, aren't I? I remember the application anxiety... it wasn't pretty.

 

[engineeredout]

I agree that low scores are frustrating, but the MCAT serves a purpose. Though not quite in med school yet (1 month!), med school is full of standardized exams that you are required to pass to become a doctor. If the student is unable to perform successfully on one standardized exam (the MCAT), why should they believe that he/she will suddenly be able to excel at standardized exams in med

Definitely the biggest argument for the mcat. What school is going to want to take you if you can't handle standarized exams? Its only going to make the school look bad if you tank them.

You're right though, the mcat performance can definitely be rough. On the other hand, its nice to have something besides GPAs for med schools to look at.

 

[DragonWell]

I doubt if anyone, including adcoms, believes that the MCAT accurately predicts how good a doctor you could eventually be. However, there is evidence that it may predict to some degree how successful you will be on future board exams, which, at least for the first two years, is a much more pressing concern than how well you can empathize with patients.

I feel your frustration, but the flip side is that schools need some way to predict which students have a high likelihood of success on the boards, which by the way, cover much more information than the MCAT. Completing two years of school and racking up a hundred grand in debt only to be unsuccessful with a board exam is not going to make anyone happy. The present system, while imperfect, has resulted in most schools consistently having board pass rates well over 90% and very small numbers of students in default on their loans.

 

[fireflygirl]

I would like to believe that the MCAT score doesn't define you as well. I wasn't pleased with my scores and I took the results quite hard. In fact, I was told by several allo committees during interviews, that despite my strong application, it was hard for them to see me passing the boards and therefore, they were hard pressed to extend an acceptance to me. But I am going to medical school and I am going to be a doctor. And that in it of itself is enough proof to me that I can succeed and that I just can't let those scores define me. Instead they have given me motivation to approach standardized tests in a different manner than I have in the past and I would like to hope that with some changes and a lot of hard work, I am going to rock the boards and break any pre-defined barriers that my MCAT score as set around me.

However, as other posters have mentioned, there has to be something by which we can measure applicants by. I wish it were a little more biased towards personal acheivement inside and outside the classroom, but until we have another way to gauge candidates, like ShyRem's excellent match idea, we're stuck with the status quo.

 

[anon y mous]

I agree that low scores are frustrating, but the MCAT serves a purpose. Though not quite in med school yet (1 month!), med school is full of standardized exams that you are required to pass to become a doctor. If the student is unable to perform successfully on one standardized exam (the MCAT), why should they believe that he/she will suddenly be able to excel at standardized exams in med school?

I understand what you're saying about caring people scoring low on the MCAT and thus having their possibilities limited, but its not as though everyone who does score high is a complete a$$hole. Scoring high and being a caring person are not inversely proportional to each other.

I'm not trying to be a downer. Everyone hates the MCAT. But its there for a reason.

People do poorly on standardized tests for a variety of reasons, so one test should not dictate whether or not you would be able to make uit through med school. People are required to "pass" tests in med school. But what would be a passing score on the MCAT? Surely people say you need to get a 30 to get in, but what would be considered passing? That's what should be the minimum requirements to get into med school. Once you make that cutoff, then the MCAT shouldn't matter any more.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Here's the thing: everyone who wants to go to med school, at some point early on, will find out basically what needs to be done to become a competitive applicant. Doing well on the MCAT is one of these things. Anyone who is truly passionate in this pursuit will do whatever is necessary to get a good score. Its not like you get through your undergrad coursework, and then some dude from AAMC shows up at your house on saturday morning, like Ed McMahon, and surprises you with the MCAT. Oh ****! I have to do this too? No, we all see it coming a mile away.

I can understand that some non-trads may not score as well, given that they may have other things going on, or they are further removed from the relevant coursework. Its up to the adcoms to pick these people out.

I'm not saying the MCAT is a predictor of anything, or that it isn't without flaws. It is, however, the best tool we have for leveling the playing field for applicants across the country. Not all undergrad GPAs mean the same thing. In Texas, I attended a very hard school, notorious for weeding students out in bulk. Particularly in the sciences. But when application time came around, I'm competing with people from glorified high schools like U of Houston, Texas Tech, and Texas State. How do we sort them out?

Sometimes, when you are smart and well-prepared, but do poorly anyway, its as simple as the bumper sticker says: **** happens. Maybe it just wasn't your buddy's day. He should re-take and show everyone that it was a fluke.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[andexterouss]

People do poorly on standardized tests for a variety of reasons, so one test should not dictate whether or not you would be able to make uit through med school. People are required to "pass" tests in med school. But what would be a passing score on the MCAT? Surely people say you need to get a 30 to get in, but what would be considered passing? That's what should be the minimum requirements to get into med school. Once you make that cutoff, then the MCAT shouldn't matter any more.

Well, 30 is the cutoff for allo which by definition is the minimum passing needed to gain an interview and hopefully an admission. Unless you are apply as URM or to black colleges. For osteo, the minimum is 24 although not set in stone cos i've seen people get with 20 or 21.

 

[RySerr21]

Well, 30 is the cutoff for allo which by definition is the minimum passing needed to gain an interview and hopefully an admission. For osteo, the minimum is 24 although not set in stone cos i've seen people get with 20 or 21.

what? where did you hear that from? did someone on the pre allo forum tell you that? definitely 100% false.

anon y mous: people get into MD school with 27-29 all the time. There is even a thread on the pre allo forum called "people with 27-29 who got interviews." I got a 28, i'm givin it my best shot.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Yes that is wrong.

I know a white middle class male who got into UT-Southwestern with a solid, but not spectacular GPA and a 28 on the MCAT. They do look at your whole application from time to time.

The average MCAT at that place is like 34 too, so its not like they don't place a lot of value in a good MCAT score. But what they really want to see is a good application, along with a "good enough" MCAT score. Now if you can get into a place like that with a 28, there are probably other places out there who will take you too. You just need a strong application across the board, and probably a good interview.


Posted via Mobile Device

 

[BeachBlondie]

It's the same scenario into every institution of higher learning. Although we probably won't use anything we study for in reference to the MCAT (I've now heard from every doctor I've asked that they don't remember a thing from the MCAT), it demonstrates that one is capable of taking a rigorous test. The MCAT tests you on taking tests (with some scientific info thrown in).

Just like it's been mentioned, it's not meant to establish what sort of physiciam you'll be...simply to weed out those who aren't competitive.

 

[p30doc]

YES you need a 35+ MCAT otherwise half your patients will die. 🙁

 

[andexterouss]

what? where did you hear that from? did someone on the pre allo forum tell you that? definitely 100% false.

anon y mous: people get into MD school with 27-29 all the time. There is even a thread on the pre allo forum called "people with 27-29 who got interviews." I got a 28, i'm givin it my best shot.

I won't be using SDN as source of evidentiary support. There's always that kid with a 26 who got into Harvard...
Anyways, like I said before , nothing is set on stone.I was emphasizing the score of those who gained interview and admission.

 

[JLC]

errrr....ok, for one thing I agree that MCATs are not the best tool, but if we can't use a standardized test what else can you rely on? GPA is one, and adcoms use it, letters? adcoms use that one too, EC's they use that one too. What is there to complain about? Each one of those have possible bias to them whether its an unlucky test date or a health issue, but the rest should help boost it up to make you competitive.

scoring a 21 is below the average for the mcat, that is so low I'm not even sure I would say your friend is as spectacular as you say he is.


Also it doesn't matter how smart a person is. It usually takes me twice as long to study for an exam as some of my friends, but I can score just the same because I work twice as hard as they do. If your friend was serious about getting medicine he should of known MCATs and gpas are his priority. Also I think its crap to say that lots of people with high numbers have no genuine interest. In fact a kid with a 41MCAT obviously shows more commitment to medicine than a person with a 21, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

and I don't think 30 is the cutoff, its more ike 28 (considering the avg matriculant is 31)

 

[Barts]

errrr....ok, for one thing I agree that MCATs are not the best tool, but if we can't use a standardized test what else can you rely on? GPA is one, and adcoms use it, letters? adcoms use that one too, EC's they use that one too. What is there to complain about? Each one of those have possible bias to them whether its an unlucky test date or a health issue, but the rest should help boost it up to make you competitive.

scoring a 21 is below the average for the mcat, that is so low I'm not even sure I would say your friend is as spectacular as you say he is.


Also it doesn't matter how smart a person is. It usually takes me twice as long to study for an exam as some of my friends, but I can score just the same because I work twice as hard as they do. If your friend was serious about getting medicine he should of known MCATs and gpas are his priority. Also I think its crap to say that lots of people with high numbers have no genuine interest. In fact a kid with a 41MCAT obviously shows more commitment to medicine than a person with a 21, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

and I don't think 30 is the cutoff, its more ike 28 (considering the avg matriculant is 31)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you comment "In fact a kid with a 41MCAT obviously shows more commitment to medicine than a person with a 21, that's not an opinion, it's a fact." I don't see your comment as fact at all. I see it as many things, but mostly flawed opinion-perhaps the person with a 41 was a better test taker, was smarter, had more time to prepare (not as much volunteering), had the money for a prep-course...the list could go on. I don't necessarily think that a higher MCAT score has a correlation to ones commitment to medicine--I think it can, but doesn't have to.

 

[RySerr21]

I won't be using SDN as source of evidentiary support. There's always that kid with a 26 who got into Harvard...
Anyways, like I said before , nothing is set on stone.I was emphasizing the score of those who gained interview and admission.

i'm not talking about the extreme case at Harvard that happens once every 10 years.... the idea that a sub-30 score is a death sentence is absolutely absurd and only exists on these boards. I agree that for each point you go below 30, it gets harder and harder to be taken seriously, but 27-29 you should definitely apply, especially if the rest of your app is solid.

if you look on the thread for those people who gained interviews with a 27-29....MANY ended up with acceptances. if you've made it to the interview you likely will not be rejected b/c of a low MCAT score...they woud have just done that to begin with. I know of cases where this has happened, and its unfortunate, but it doesnt happen very foten.

 

[RySerr21]

errrr....ok, for one thing I agree that MCATs are not the best tool, but if we can't use a standardized test what else can you rely on? GPA is one, and adcoms use it, letters? adcoms use that one too, EC's they use that one too. What is there to complain about? Each one of those have possible bias to them whether its an unlucky test date or a health issue, but the rest should help boost it up to make you competitive.

scoring a 21 is below the average for the mcat, that is so low I'm not even sure I would say your friend is as spectacular as you say he is.


Also it doesn't matter how smart a person is. It usually takes me twice as long to study for an exam as some of my friends, but I can score just the same because I work twice as hard as they do. If your friend was serious about getting medicine he should of known MCATs and gpas are his priority. Also I think its crap to say that lots of people with high numbers have no genuine interest. In fact a kid with a 41MCAT obviously shows more commitment to medicine than a person with a 21, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

and I don't think 30 is the cutoff, its more ike 28 (considering the avg matriculant is 31)

I agree with Barts on this one......... thats not a fact. It is your opinion...your very skewed opinion at that. there is no basis for your assumption. You can be exceptionally brilliant and do well on the MCAT with out studying or showing any commitment to medicine. ESPECIALLY since the MCAT has nothing to do with the practice of medicine itself.

Here is an example of doing well on a standardized test w/o showing commitment to the field: I know a kid who took the MCAT and got like a 37, he studied for a month and was dedicated to getting in to medical school, but thats not the point. This same guy had a buddy who was taking the LSAT. The friend told him to take it too, just for the hell of it, so he did. He ended up with a 170 or some ridiculous score. He was NOT dedicated to law, he wasnt even interested. He put no effort into studying whatsoever, and he killedd the test. Can you really argue tha tthis kid with a 170 was more dedicated than someone with a 150 who has been working to become a lawyer his/her whole life? No, you can not.

 

[GamjaXnamjA]

I'm posing a very serious question to all readers:


Do you think MCAT performance is a true indicator of intelligence/future potential?


I can't understand how or why really bright people end up with sucky MCAT scores, thus completely destroying their chances of getting into med school.


My best friend (who just happens to be one of the smartest people I know) scored a 21P on his June ’08 MCAT. The poor fella is simply inconsolable.

In short, I'm sick and tired of seeing smart people with a genuine interest in medicine get screwed because of poor MCAT scores. Why can’t admissions committees see beyond the numbers? A bad MCAT score doesn’t mean a person is stupid, can’t perform academically, or that they won't make awesome doctors!

Meanwhile, arrogant buttholes who probably don’t give 2 sh*ts about the sick/injured seem to have no problems getting in…

Sorry folks, I just had to get this off my chest!

I heard from lots of med students that you will never use any of the information learned and studied for from the MCAT in medical school. I think it's just a test used to see how well you can handle upper level courses..

 

[MilkmanAl]

I know a kid who took the MCAT and got like a 37, he studied for a month and was dedicated to getting in to medical school, but thats not the point.

That sounds like me. I'm plenty dedicated to going to med school, but I approached the MCAT very naively and didn't give myself anywhere near enough time to prepare. However, I grew up doing math contests, so high-pressure day-long tests are nothing new. In other words, I'm a great test taker and pulled a 35 on the MCAT despite preparing poorly. I seriously doubt that means I'm more dedicated to a medical career than everyone who scored a 34 or less. In fact, given the info I just provided, you could probably make a pretty strong case to the contrary.

 

[cbrons]

Here's the thing: everyone who wants to go to med school, at some point early on, will find out basically what needs to be done to become a competitive applicant. Doing well on the MCAT is one of these things. Anyone who is truly passionate in this pursuit will do whatever is necessary to get a good score. Its not like you get through your undergrad coursework, and then some dude from AAMC shows up at your house on saturday morning, like Ed McMahon, and surprises you with the MCAT. Oh ****! I have to do this too? No, we all see it coming a mile away.

I can understand that some non-trads may not score as well, given that they may have other things going on, or they are further removed from the relevant coursework. Its up to the adcoms to pick these people out.

I'm not saying the MCAT is a predictor of anything, or that it isn't without flaws. It is, however, the best tool we have for leveling the playing field for applicants across the country. Not all undergrad GPAs mean the same thing. In Texas, I attended a very hard school, notorious for weeding students out in bulk. Particularly in the sciences. But when application time came around, I'm competing with people from glorified high schools like U of Houston, Texas Tech, and Texas State. How do we sort them out?

Sometimes, when you are smart and well-prepared, but do poorly anyway, its as simple as the bumper sticker says: **** happens. Maybe it just wasn't your buddy's day. He should re-take and show everyone that it was a fluke.

Posted via Mobile Device

10,000 miles away ... I won't take the MCAT until late April or early May but started studying on Memorial day.. nothing too huge, just reviewing some of the basic concepts I learned in biology about enzymes and cellular respiration. I have had an extremely busy summer, taking 3 summer school classes, but I've worked in some small study sessions here and there. In writing out my schedule for the fall, I've set aside at least 5 hours a week to focus solely on material for the MCAT. Most people don't need this long to prepare but I have the disadvantage in that I will not have Organic chem by the time I take the test (I have a tutor setup for the fall, to focus on material from the class the AAMC says will be on the test).

 

[stixx]

Here's the thing: everyone who wants to go to med school, at some point early on, will find out basically what needs to be done to become a competitive applicant. Doing well on the MCAT is one of these things. Anyone who is truly passionate in this pursuit will do whatever is necessary to get a good score.

100% agree. The argument about the quality of a 41 kid versus a 21 seems kind of moot too. Could someone who scored a 41 "without really trying" have scored higher had they actually cared? Probably not. Could someone with a 21 have scored better than a 21? Probably, as long as they have at least an average ability at standardized testing. If you are "passionate" about medicine, put in months and months of work and end up with a 21, maybe this isn't the career path for you. But most likely that 21 was a result of not caring/trying hard enough, which can easily be fixed.

 

[gasapple]

10,000 miles away ... I won't take the MCAT until late April or early May but started studying on Memorial day.. nothing too huge, just reviewing some of the basic concepts I learned in biology about enzymes and cellular respiration. I have had an extremely busy summer, taking 3 summer school classes, but I've worked in some small study sessions here and there. In writing out my schedule for the fall, I've set aside at least 5 hours a week to focus solely on material for the MCAT. Most people don't need this long to prepare but I have the disadvantage in that I will not have Organic chem by the time I take the test (I have a tutor setup for the fall, to focus on material from the class the AAMC says will be on the test).

You've got a solid plan. 👍

 

[cliquesh]

If you look at correlation studies that examine a medicial students success in medical school as a function of MCAT and GPA, you will see that GPA alone is a poor indicator, MCAT alone is a better but not perfect indicator, and GPA + MCAT does a decent job.

But if you ask any doctor, MD/DO, they will tell you that you don't use any of the information on the MCAT in medical school. The mcat pretty much just shows how much you are willing to study, and if you got endurence.

But really, anyone with a decent memory could pass medical school. No doctor says its hard, its just time consuming.

 

[BeachBlondie]

If you look at correlation studies that examine a medicial students success in medical school as a function of MCAT and GPA, you will see that GPA alone is a poor indicator, MCAT alone is a better but not perfect indicator, and GPA + MCAT does a decent job.

But if you ask any doctor, MD/DO, they will tell you that you don't use any of the information on the MCAT in medical school. The mcat pretty much just shows how much you are willing to study, and if you got endurence.

But really, anyone with a decent memory could pass medical school. No doctor says its hard, its just time consuming.

Broski...

People are probably going to yell at us, but it's ok...I'm down to throw punches if you have my back.

Honestly, I've heard this quite a bit, too. One comes onto this board (an unknowing pre-med...scared and awfully shy) to learn about acceptance. Suddenly, after scouring the posts, everyone makes it seems as if medical school is damn near impossible to get into and even harder to go through--a hellish existence for four years. After some of the things that people write, I'd rather jab myself in both eyes with a blunt (but piercing) object...Oedipus style.

Upon asking a few docs here and there about their experiences, many of them have said, "It's totally doable. I LOVED med school." Or "It's not really that hard." Or "Yea...when you get into Yale or Harvard."

I think the problem is that all of this is rigorous. I mean, it needs to be. But, bottom line: if you're on top of your game and hustling your backside off, then it's not going to be as crazy as everyone makes it sound. The reason it catches us so off guard is because it is unlike anything we've had to go through. YES, it will test your limits. YES, you will want to stab the person next to you at times. But honestly, shouldn't doctors be run through the wringer? I mean, we are handling people's lives.

If you're dedicated and don't mess around, you can do it.

Fin.

 

[Thantis]

Two things I had heard, for success in med school, are proper time management and motivation to succeed (sp?).

 

[scpod]

....But really, anyone with a decent memory could pass medical school. No doctor says its hard, its just time consuming.

While there is a lot of brute memorization in some med school courses, it's far from the most important thing. Integration of your knowledge is what allows you to excel. Problem solving and interpretational abilities are much more important. That's really what the MCAT tests-- not knowledge. That's one of the reasons why biology majors have the second-to-worst MCAT averages (followed only by health sciences majors) of all. They spend most of their undergrad careers learning to memorize stuff.

That said, the BS section of the MCAT has been a better predictor of academic medical school success at my school than PS or VR. And, my school tends to watch that section of the MCAT more closely than just the total. Other schools may have different experiences, though.

Back to the original thought: Med school IS hard. It's devastatingly hard at times. The MATERIAL is not all that hard. But it's virtually impossible to just memorize your way through med school. I've had tests with more than 50 chapters at a time on them. How are you really going to memorize that material? You can't. Your reasoning skills are easily as important or more important than your ability to memorize trivia. On a lot of tests I haven't known the answers at all....but was able to reason out the answer with some careful thought. That's the ability that the MCAT is trying to test you on, because that's what you really do in day-to-day life as a doctor.

No, it's not a perfect system and it's not a predictor of how good a doctor you'll be-- but there has to be a way to weed people out of it. Everybody can't be the President; everybody can't be the Pope. And, again, everybody can't be a doctor. But, you CAN take the MCAT again if you really want to do it badly enough. About 20% of the matriculants to my two in-state MD schools from back home are second timers. If you want it bad enough, try harder. Try two, three or four times if you have to.

 

[MossPoh]

Nearly all of us have these stories of knowing someone that scored low and thrived in medical school, as well as the opposite. The general public likes to think that every doctor is ungodly smart...that is hardly true. We all have our faults. I was testing in the high 30s on practice exams, freaked out on the real thing and got a 25. I accepted it was my fault and am taking it again. The mcat is just one more hoop to jump through. There is really no steadfast way to know how a student will do in medical school. The strongest correlation is gpa, but you'll find students that were mediocre in undergrad that just turn it on during medical school. So the short answer is no. Bad training and an apathetic attitude towards learning will make you a bad doctor.

 

[littlealex]

Just want to quickly say that if your friend is getting a 21, s/he isn't that smart.
If you know your basics you should be able to get a 10 on each section. If you REALLY know your material you should be able to consistently get 12+ on the two sciences.

What I'm tired of are the people who don't know how to study properly or lack the mental faculties to quickly integrate new information, yet just simply would not stop complaining.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I'm not going to say that this friend mentioned in the original post isn't smart. This person might be smarter than all of us. Maybe he just had a bad day. **** happens. Regardless, he will most likely need to figure out what he did wrong and work to correct his weaknesses. Being able to learn from your mistakes is part of being intelligent. Particularly when it comes to something like this.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[fireflygirl]

While there is a lot of brute memorization in some med school courses, it's far from the most important thing. Integration of your knowledge is what allows you to excel. Problem solving and interpretational abilities are much more important. That's really what the MCAT tests-- not knowledge. That's one of the reasons why biology majors have the second-to-worst MCAT averages (followed only by health sciences majors) of all. They spend most of their undergrad careers learning to memorize stuff.

That said, the BS section of the MCAT has been a better predictor of academic medical school success at my school than PS or VR. And, my school tends to watch that section of the MCAT more closely than just the total. Other schools may have different experiences, though.

Back to the original thought: Med school IS hard. It's devastatingly hard at times. The MATERIAL is not all that hard. But it's virtually impossible to just memorize your way through med school. I've had tests with more than 50 chapters at a time on them. How are you really going to memorize that material? You can't. Your reasoning skills are easily as important or more important than your ability to memorize trivia. On a lot of tests I haven't known the answers at all....but was able to reason out the answer with some careful thought. That's the ability that the MCAT is trying to test you on, because that's what you really do in day-to-day life as a doctor.

No, it's not a perfect system and it's not a predictor of how good a doctor you'll be-- but there has to be a way to weed people out of it. Everybody can't be the President; everybody can't be the Pope. And, again, everybody can't be a doctor. But, you CAN take the MCAT again if you really want to do it badly enough. About 20% of the matriculants to my two in-state MD schools from back home are second timers. If you want it bad enough, try harder. Try two, three or four times if you have to.

👍 Really well said. I wish I had known this a little sooner but being a non-trad it took me a while to understand this approach. And I still haven't mastered it. That being said, I think scpod brings up a really good reason for the MCAT. But I still think it's a stupid test!!!! 😡

 

[SJonathan]

Not to sound too nerdy, but I like the MCAT. I think its a well-written test. Your GPA is supposed to be an indicator of your study habits and your ability to learn, but I think the MCAT is more of a test on how you think. It tests your conceptual skills. I think in some ways its kind of worded like an IQ test. Granted, you need to know some basic science principles, but if you look at it, they never really test you on anything extremely advanced - they just test it in a conceptual way. That's why a GPA + MCAT gives a decent picture of the applicant.


Insert witty, sarcastic comment here.

 

[scdocusc]

wow! I believe that there might be strong evidence that one could conclude that the higher your MCAT score is the more likely you will be a poor doctor. The MCAT will not make you a bad doctor. Arrogance, and ignorance will make you a poor doctor. If you have the drive to study and do well. Just do what you need to get in. Then rise above and beyond and you will be a better physician than the tool who got a 41 on the MCAT and has a horrible personality. I think the MCAT needs major revisions personally but it is needed during admissions. However, to say that a person who scores low on the MCAT is "stupid" or "not cut out to be a good doctor" is plain BS!!!

 

[RisingSun]

A good friend of mine got a 24, was accepted to three allo schools, and is now a 2nd year.

Getting into med school takes more than a good MCAT. You are not your MCAT score. What else is there to your friend other than a 21 MCAT? If he is really dedicated to getting into medical school then his activities and life experiences will show this. If he has a poor MCAT and nothing else to show for himself - there might be a school that would scoop him up, but not likely. Tell him to take it again, it is offered so often now that it is computerized (I took the paper version).

 

[MadEvans]

If you look at correlation studies that examine a medicial students success in medical school as a function of MCAT and GPA, you will see that GPA alone is a poor indicator, MCAT alone is a better but not perfect indicator, and GPA + MCAT does a decent job.

But if you ask any doctor, MD/DO, they will tell you that you don't use any of the information on the MCAT in medical school. The mcat pretty much just shows how much you are willing to study, and if you got endurence.

But really, anyone with a decent memory could pass medical school. No doctor says its hard, its just time consuming.

This makes sense, since "medical students' success" is probably gauged by step 1, step 2, and all the other standardized tests they have to take. Really all that can be gathered from those studies is, if you're a great test taker you will continue to be a great test taker. But I do agree with you, GPA + MCAT combined should be a fairly good indicator of a worthy applicant.

You really think that organ systems (neurological, renal, etc.) won't show up in medical school, really? Even a lot of the physics is applicable when you consider the vascular system and medical imaging. Verbal/writing skills are obviously important in landing good jobs and communicating effectively with patients/colleagues. All this coming from someone who only scored decent on the MCAT. Maybe I should reconsider my stance... Ha.

 

[DrMidlife]

I won't be using SDN as source of evidentiary support. There's always that kid with a 26 who got into Harvard...
Anyways, like I said before , nothing is set on stone.I was emphasizing the score of those who gained interview and admission.

You don't need SDN to find numbers. Look in the '09 MSAR, and add up the 10th percentile numbers for the MCAT for accepted applicants. You'll see that only 3 MD schools have a 10th percentile combined MCAT score of 30 or higher.

I'm not trying to say that 120+ MD schools accept 10% of their students with sub-30 MCATs. But it's safe to infer that at least 60 do. Don't get me started on addition of medians - I know, I know.

P.S. you can reject all the consensus info on SDN you like, but making up facts and not citing your sources is so pre-allo.

 

[andexterouss]

You don't need SDN to find numbers. Look in the '09 MSAR, and add up the 10th percentile numbers for the MCAT for accepted applicants. You'll see that only 3 MD schools have a 10th percentile combined MCAT score of 30 or higher.

I'm not trying to say that 120+ MD schools accept 10% of their students with sub-30 MCATs. But it's safe to infer that at least 60 do. Don't get me started on addition of medians - I know, I know.

Ummmm, granted I don't have the MSAR '09 with me and used the US News as my anchor. But let's say you are right. If 60 MD schools accepted 10% of their students with sub-30, I'm not sure how that proves your case (or even what your point is). The percentage is too small and the variables are large. First, did the students apply as URM? Or In-state? Or veteran status?? You have to account these variables and more when looking at those numbers. My classmate got accepted to Columbia with a 29 but he was in the military and did the iraq gig. The acceptance grade for that school is ~33 according to US News.
Like I said in my earlier post ,nothing is written in stone, but all things being equal, the vast majority of those accepted to MD schools had or broke the 30 barrier according to US News. That 10% are exceptions not the norm and I'd be careful how I tout those numbers.

P.S. you can reject all the consensus info on SDN you like, but making up facts and not citing your sources is so pre-allo.

Oh please, save your moral indignation for someone else.Peace out.

 

[Lokhtar]

People do poorly on standardized tests for a variety of reasons, so one test should not dictate whether or not you would be able to make uit through med school.

One test does decide that - the USMLE. You can't be a doctor without passing it (or COMLEX if you are a DO). Like it or not, standardized Tests are a part of being in medicine. You'll be taking them often, and there is a correlation between MCAT and USMLE. If they don't think you can pass the boards, why should schools take you in?

So the MCAT may not decide whether you'll be a good doctor, but it can help predict whether you're cut out to be a doctor at all. You can't be a doctor without passing the board exams.

Obviously, plenty of people do fine on the boards despite doing badly on the MCAT, but the correlation is there, and considering how many applicants a school gets - why would they take that chance on a low MCAT when they have an applicant with much higher scores and probably similar in other respects too?

 

[Lokhtar]

In fact, there is a 0.69 correlation between MCAT and USMLE, while only .49 between GPA and USMLE. On the other hand, the best prediction of grades in medical school is a combination of GPA and MCAT.

-Source

 

[Instatewaiter]

Do you think MCAT performance is a true indicator of intelligence/future potential?

I can't understand how or why really bright people end up with sucky MCAT scores, thus completely destroying their chances of getting into med school.
My best friend (who just happens to be one of the smartest people I know) scored a 21P on his June '08 MCAT. The poor fella is simply inconsolable.
Meanwhile, arrogant buttholes who probably don't give 2 sh*ts about the sick/injured seem to have no problems getting in…

Is 'your friend' named AnaMaria777?

The MCAT is a decent indicator of your mental aptitude and your ability to pass tests. Both of these are vital to getting through medical school- whether because of the vast amt of material to consolidate or the plethora of standardized exams you will be forced to take. Along with GPA the 2 show what the Adcom is looking for: mental aptitude and drive. One can help substitute for the other, but only to a certain extent. For the record, it is much easier to overcome a crappy MCAT with a very solid GPA than it is to overcome a crappy GPA with a solid MCAT.

Either you friend had a really bad day and thus scored the 21 or really isnt as bright as your are letting on. A 21 is bad. But, your friend can always study harder and retake it. That is the beauty of the MCAT. Really bright people dont stay with a 21, they retake and do better.

People do poorly on standardized tests for a variety of reasons, so one test should not dictate whether or not you would be able to make uit through med school.

I would put the "passing" mark around a 25. When you are compared to a very competitive applicant pool, passing often times is not adequate to get in.

If you have a bad day on the test, you can always retake, as much as you want. All you have to do is ask the MCAT people to retake more than 3 times. With an ok reason they say yes. Many states will not allow you to retake the USMLE more than twice- EVER.

Now if you cannot pass the boards, which are much harder and require much more integration than the MCAT you cannot be a doctor, flat out and simple. The MCAT is a hoop you must jump through so that a school can be confident you will pass the boards- all 3 steps.

Ummmm, granted I don't have the MSAR '09 with me and used the US News as my anchor. But let's say you are right. If 60 MD schools accepted 10% of their students with sub-30, I'm not sure how that proves your case (or even what your point is). The percentage is too small and the variables are large. First, did the students apply as URM? Or In-state? Or veteran status?? You have to account these variables and more when looking at those numbers. My classmate got accepted to Columbia with a 29 but he was in the military and did the iraq gig. The acceptance grade for that school is ~33 according to US News.
Like I said in my earlier post ,nothing is written in stone, but all things being equal, the vast majority of those accepted to MD schools had or broke the 30 barrier according to US News. That 10% are exceptions not the norm and I'd be careful how I tout those numbers.


Oh please, save your moral indignation for someone else.Peace out.

There are tons of people who get into allopathic schools with below a 30. I would guess well over a few thousand a year. I personally know of a person with a 20 who got into my school (allo) and a few more with around a 25. Is it the majority, no, but there are some.

Mean is a 31 and StD I am guestimating is 3ish. So 16% of applicants get in with a 28 or below.

16% of 15,000 is 2400. And that is probably low ball because I think the StD is larger for the composite scores. Regardless, lots of people get in with sub-30 scores. It is much harder, but is doable with a solid application, good people skills and something unique about yourself.

 

[Saregamapadanis]

In short, I'm sick and tired of seeing smart people with a genuine interest in medicine get screwed because of poor MCAT scores. Why can’t admissions committees see beyond the numbers?

If the applicant's interest in medicine is "genuine" and if he/she is mentally able to handle the work, then that person will work hard enough to get the scores needed to get into school. Now, you know why the admissions committees don't see beyond the numbers, yes?

It is all about reaching the goals set for you while keeping the whining to a minimum. Tell your friend to try again.

 

[DrMidlife]

Well, 30 is the cutoff for allo which by definition is the minimum passing needed to gain an interview and hopefully an admission. Unless you are apply as URM or to black colleges.

Just so we're clear, this is pre-allo crap. Nobody is served when posters state non-facts as if they are facts. If they're facts, cite your sources.

And just so we're clear, I would NOT SUGGEST that folks go off and assume that getting under a 30 is fine, or that any score is any kind of insurance. Great, so you get in, now what are you going to do? The MCAT is only the first and the easiest of the standardized exams in our future.

 

[scdocusc]

Can you prove that the MCAT is easier than the USMLE or COMLEX? I dont think so. It's different for everyone and medical education can flux just like any other type of school. I'm sure there are people out there who didnt have a high MCAT and did well on the COMLEX. Also, AAMC might be a little biased in their correlation study with the MCAT and USMLE since the core of their institution is based on that correlation.

 

[Cp22kjer]

I scored best on the BS section of the MCAT and believe it or not it was my favorite section. Imagine that!

In turn I would like to think that I'll be much more interested in the topics confronted during medical school than the ones found on the MCAT; resulting in better performance. This may only pertain to certain people like myself but I doubt it.

Just a thought.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

My best section was bio, but on test day, I couldn't wait to get the **** out of there. Bio was the last section of the 8-hour test, and my head was spinning. I scored well because I knew a lot of bio, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

My favorite section was verbal. I love the challenge of being asked to interpret new information on the fly. It was also my worst section when I started MCAT prep, so I was looking forward to seeing the result of my hard work on the real MCAT.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Richie Truxillo]

Well, different topic and same reply pretty much 🙂 Your MCAT scores matter next to nothing once you are out of medical school. How much organic chem do I use on a day to day basis? Zero. Cell Biology? Pretty much zero. How about physics? Zero.

You'll learn physiological concepts that MIGHT be linked to a smidgen of physics and undergrad bio, but that won't benefit you much.

Anyway here's my reply to a previous thread:

[quote="Richie Truxillo]
You are only as successful as the sum of your medical competency, time management skills and business savvy. Degree has zero to do with it. I've seen some absolutely stellar Caribbean MDs and American DOs. (heck I work along side of some Caribbean MDs and am proud to call them my colleagues)

On the flip side, I've seen some, how do I say this in a politically correct manner, graduates of "well thought of schools" who are flat out an endangerment to society.

Where you goto medical school is possibly a direct correlation to your standardized test taking skills. It sure as heck doesn't automagically transform you into the world's best doctor.

YOU are ultimately responsible for your medical education so learn as much as possible in school and take initiative. Doesn't matter where you go, no amount of spoonfeeding will substitute for motive, drive and life-long learning.

Me? I'm just a lowly intern but I'm motivated to do my job to the best of my ability.

I can't lock this thread, not my assigned forum/duty but wanted to get my 2 cents in, just in case this was an actual question. Sorry to all if I fed the trolls [/quote]

 

[JLC]

I disagree, you do use ochem, cell bio and physics in medicine and depending on your specialty, every day.

Simply because you don't doesn't mean other people don't. I asked my friend who goes to Hopkins the point of their curriculum emphasizing a lot of basic science and he told me he felt it made him know more about WHY, and HOW treatments work. Clearly Hopkins doesn't train crappy doctors right so they must be doing something right.