Does each point jump in MCAT really make up for .1 of GPA?

[lolpremed22]

According to the LizzyM scale it does. But it seems way too good to be true.

How can:
3.7 and 520 = 4.0 and 517 in competitiveness?
3.5 and 521 = 3.6 and 520 = 4.0 and 516?

Or in the lower range of MCAT:
3.8 and 514 = 4.0 and 512?


It just seems crazy to me that a 3.7 and 520 could equal a 4.0 and 517 when a 3 point jump in MCAT is much easier to achieve than a .3 difference in GPA.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RTD]

LizzyM is just a way to communicate stats on the forums. It is not used in the admissions process.

 

[lpp06]

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf

Check out the distribution of MCAT and GPA -

Far fewer have an "Elite" MCAT score (518+; 4.2%) than do GPA (3.8+; 23.9%).

Agree with the above, it's just a heuristic to aggregate your academic metrics and compare them to the respective averages of potential schools.

Also, LizzyM score was developed with the old MCAT scale (3-45) when a 3 point jump was more significant than it is now in the 472-528 scale

 

[Lawpy]

According to the LizzyM scale it does. But it seems way too good to be true.

How can:
3.7 and 520 = 4.0 and 517 in competitiveness?
3.5 and 521 = 3.6 and 520 = 4.0 and 516?

Or in the lower range of MCAT:
3.8 and 514 = 4.0 and 512?


It just seems crazy to me that a 3.7 and 520 could equal a 4.0 and 517 when a 3 point jump in MCAT is much easier to achieve than a .3 difference in GPA.

Competitiveness depends on a specific school's internal formula used for evaluating applications. LizzyM score is just an estimation and should not be viewed as an absolute and universal measure of competitiveness.

 

[Goro]

According to the LizzyM scale it does. But it seems way too good to be true.

How can:
3.7 and 520 = 4.0 and 517 in competitiveness?
3.5 and 521 = 3.6 and 520 = 4.0 and 516?

Or in the lower range of MCAT:
3.8 and 514 = 4.0 and 512?


It just seems crazy to me that a 3.7 and 520 could equal a 4.0 and 517 when a 3 point jump in MCAT is much easier to achieve than a .3 difference in GPA.

We really, really, REALLY do NOT think like this.

 

[dcss-csdc]

_

 

[thedarkniteeee]

tbh ur gpa doesnt matter. From this cycle so far, schools just bin people into URM/ORM and then sort them from high to low mcat. As long as your gpa is 3.8+ they don't care about gpa so much as they do mcat

 

[premeds_r_dumb_123]

GPA inflation is becoming way too common. Most colleges hand out A's like candy now. I would hope the MCAT takes precedence over GPA.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

LizzyM was also designed based on the old MCAT. The new scoring system makes it do wacky things so that it's not as reliable.

 

[Lawpy]

LizzyM was also designed based on the old MCAT. The new scoring system makes it do wacky things so that it's not as reliable.

LizzyM scores are definitely reliable regardless of any MCAT scale used. Just use percentile tables and convert whatever new scale to old scores.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

LizzyM scores are definitely reliable regardless of any MCAT scale used. Just use percentile tables and convert whatever new scale to old scores.

Right...so you're using the old scoring system. Which is what I said.

 

[premeds_r_dumb_123]

Right...so you're using the old scoring system. Which is what I said.

Which is based on percentiles, and percentiles are invariant....so what's your point?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Which is based on percentiles, and percentiles are invariant....so what's your point?

My point is that the op was using the new scale, not the percentiles, which obviously makes the results do weird things like make your GPA go up by a tenth of a point for a single point change in MCAT score. I didn't say anything about LizzyM being unreliable in general or that you couldn't use percentiles to convert your score and calculate it that way.

So I don't see why he felt the need to imply that I did, nor do I see the point of your post. You're arguing a point I didn't make.

 

[Lawpy]

Right...so you're using the old scoring system. Which is what I said.

LizzyM was also designed based on the old MCAT. The new scoring system makes it do wacky things so that it's not as reliable.

You claimed the new scoring system made LizzyM scores not as reliable. I'm saying that's not true because percentile conversions resolve the problem. Percentiles are percentiles: it doesn't matter what scale is used as long as we have the histograms needed to make percentile charts.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

No, I said using the new scoring system makes it not as reliable.

 

[Lawpy]

My point is that the op was using the new scale, not the percentiles, which obviously makes the results do weird things like make your GPA go up by a tenth of a point for a single point change in MCAT score. I didn't say anything about LizzyM being unreliable in general or that you couldn't use percentiles to convert your score and calculate it that way.

So I don't see why he felt the need to imply that I did, nor do I see the point of your post. You're arguing a point I didn't make.

Right because LizzyM scores are defined in the old MCAT scale from 0 to 45. So LizzyM scores range from 0 to 85. Directly plugging in the new MCAT score results in meaningless values, which is why percentile conversions are needed.

LizzyM scores work regardless of the MCAT scale used.

No, I said using the new scoring system makes it not as reliable.

Reliability isn't affected by MCAT scoring systems because percentile conversions take care of the problem. LizzyM score is defined on an 85-point scale so the range must be acknowledged in order to use it meaningfully. Directly using the MCAT scales without conversions result in something different from LizzyM scores. It does not affect reliability or validity of LizzyM scores.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Are you telling me that using the LizzyM formula GPA*10 + MCAT, it doesn't matter which scale you use? You're kidding me right?

Percentiles are percentiles, so converting solves the problem. That's not what was in the OP. He clearly used the new scale to calculate it, and I was letting him know that she came up with it with the old scale, so using the new one will produce less reliable results.

How are you not getting this?

Edit: you scooped part of my post, but you seem extremely confused about what's going on. For the last time, I am simply letting OP know that if he wants the score to make sense, the new scale won't work, which implies to anyone with common sense that he needs to convert.

 

[Lawpy]

Are you telling me that using the LizzyM formula GPA*10 + MCAT, it doesn't matter which scale you use? You're kidding me right?

Percentiles are percentiles, so converting solves the problem. That's not what was in the OP. He clearly used the new scale to calculate it, and I was letting him know that she came up with it with the old scale, so using the new one will produce less reliable results.

How are you not getting this?

Edit: you scooped part of my post, but you seem extremely confused about what's going on. For the last time, I am simply letting OP know that if he wants the score to make sense, the new scale won't work, which implies to anyone with common sense that he needs to convert.

I think we're saying the same thing but you are wrong when you're arguing LizzyM scores aren't reliable because of a different MCAT scoring scale. Reliability and validity of LizzyM scores are unaffected by MCAT scoring scales. It's essential to know what LizzyM score means and what it is based on. Directly plugging in a different MCAT scale results in something else different from the LizzyM score. I don't know what the new score it is but it is not the LizzyM score. LizzyM scores are defined on an 85-point scale using a 0-45 old MCAT scale. This definition must be taken into account when using the LizzyM score.

People need to understand what LizzyM scores are in order to use the formula properly. Just plugging stuff in without understanding what the resulting values mean doesn't show anything.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think we're saying the same thing but you are wrong when you're arguing LizzyM scores aren't reliable because of a different MCAT scoring scale. Reliability and validity of LizzyM scores are unaffected by MCAT scoring scales. It's essential to know what LizzyM score means and what it is based on. Directly plugging in a different MCAT scale results in something else different from the LizzyM score. I don't know what the new score it is but it is not the LizzyM score. LizzyM scores are defined on an 85-point scale using a 0-45 old MCAT scale. This must be taken into account when using the LizzyM score.

People need to understand what LizzyM scores are in order to use the formula properly. Just plugging stuff in without understanding what the resulting values mean doesn't show anything.

For the love of God. If you plug a number into a formula, but you've used the wrong scale (like you used feet for displacement but meters for g), then you will get a totally unreliable (or incorrect) answer. The answer is still the answer, it's just meaningless. You are very hung up on the terms, but it's the LizzyM formula. The LizzyM score you get is nonsense. Who cares what you want to call it? That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Here is what happened. This is the last time I am explaining.

1. OP posts question about how LizzyM score works using new MCAT scale.
2. It is clear OP used new scale to calculate LizzyM score, which is not how the formula was derived.
3. A bunch of replies say how it's just a tool, but no one mentions that if he uses the old scale, it is more reliable and how it was designed.
4. I point out that it was formulated using the old scale, and using the new scale will provide unreliable answers.
5. Logical continuation of that for anyone with common sense is that he should convert his score to the old scale and calculate it again.

That's it. The end. Fin. No need to argue about its reliablilty or percentiles or conversion, as none of that was ever a point of contention.

/argument

 

[Lawpy]

For the love of God. If you plug a number into a formula, but you've used the wrong scale (like you used feet for displacement but meters for g), then you will get a totally unreliable (or incorrect) answer. The answer is still the answer, it's just meaningless. You are very hung up on the terms, but it's the LizzyM formula. The LizzyM score you get is nonsense. Who cares what you want to call it? That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Here is what happened. This is the last time I am explaining.

1. OP posts question about how LizzyM score works using new MCAT scale.
2. It is clear OP used new scale to calculate LizzyM score, which is not how the formula was derived.
3. A bunch of replies say how it's just a tool, but no one mentions that if he uses the old scale, it is more reliable and how it was designed.
4. I point out that it was formulated using the old scale, and using the new scale will provide unreliable answers.
5. Logical continuation of that for anyone with common sense is that he should convert his score to the old scale and calculate it again.

That's it. The end. Fin. No need to argue about its reliablilty or percentiles or conversion, as none of that was ever a point of contention.

/argument

The point of contention has entirely to do with your claim that LizzyM scores aren't as reliable because of a different scoring system.

LizzyM was also designed based on the old MCAT. The new scoring system makes it do wacky things so that it's not as reliable.

"It" referring to LizzyM score (and not the values resulting from directly plugging new MCAT scores into the formula as you later stated.) That's the point I was addressing.

The rest of the discussion is largely in agreement but it's critical that everyone must note that the LizzyM score formula does not mean anything if the definjtion of LizzyM score is ignored. Simple as that. Ignoring the definition makes any formula useless.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The point of contention has entirely to do with your claim that LizzyM scores aren't as reliable because of a different scoring system.



"It" referring to LizzyM score (and not the values resulting from directly plugging new MCAT scores into the formula as you later stated.) That's the point I was addressing.

The rest of the discussion is largely in agreement but it's critical that everyone must note that the LizzyM score formula does not mean anything if the definjtion of LizzyM score is ignored. Simple as that. Ignoring the definition makes any formula useless.

When I explained what I meant the first time, that should have been the end of it. You harped on against an argument I didn't make for multiple posts even after I clarified.

 

[Lawpy]

When I explained what I meant the first time, that should have been the end of it. You harped on against an argument I didn't make for multiple posts even after I clarified.

That doesn't matter because reliability and validity shouldn't be loosely used to undermine a useful concept/tool.

Also, like I said before, people using new MCAT scores directly into the formula aren't calculating LizzyM scores. They're calculating something different that doesn't have any meaning. These values are useless but reliability of LizzyM scores is unaffected. This is a central point that everyone should know, especially to OP and readers of the thread.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

That doesn't matter because reliability and validity shouldn't be loosely used to undermine a useful concept/tool.

Also, like I said before, people using new MCAT scores directly into the formula aren't calculating LizzyM scores. They're calculating something different that doesn't have any meaning. These values are useless but reliability of LizzyM scores is unaffected. This is a central point that everyone should know, especially to OP and readers of the thread.

I give up. Your pedantry overwhelms me.

Exit, pursued by a bear.

 

[Lawpy]

I give up. Your pedantry overwhelms me.

Exit, pursued by a bear.

 

[Govols22]

GPA inflation is becoming way too common. Most colleges hand out A's like candy now. I would hope the MCAT takes precedence over GPA.

I disagree. GPA tests not only intelligence but work ethic. A high MCAT doesn't compensate for a low GPA. Brilliance doesn't offset laziness.

 

[Lawpy]

I disagree. GPA tests not only intelligence but work ethic. A high MCAT doesn't compensate for a low GPA. Brilliance doesn't offset laziness.

The mathematics of GPA weakens the notion that it tests work ethic. If someone messed up in first year of college with sub-2.0 GPA, few years of 4.0 GPA performance will result in barely below 3.5 GPA. Also not to mention that acquiring a 3.9+ GPA at top tier universities is very difficult since students on average have high SAT/ACT scores and are graded on bell curves.

The notion that a low GPA represents laziness is inaccurate.

 

[The_InsideR123]

The mathematics of GPA weakens the notion that it tests work ethic. If someone messed up in first year of college with sub-2.0 GPA, few years of 4.0 GPA performance will result in barely below 3.5 GPA. Also not to mention that acquiring a 3.9+ GPA at top tier universities is very difficult since students on average have high SAT/ACT scores and are graded on bell curves.

The notion that a low GPA represents laziness is inaccurate.

To a certain extent. I think any person taking advantage of their education opportunities and trying hard can easily maintain a straight B average at least (3.0 GPA). If a person has far below a 3.0 and isn't in an engineering program, I can almost guarantee that the person wasn't trying as hard as they could have.

Sure, the difference between a 3.25 and a 3.75 may be due to laziness or may be due to other factors, but the difference between a 2.6 and a 3.1 is IMO definitely (at least in part) due to laziness/lack of motivation.

 

[lolpremed22]

To a certain extent. I think any person taking advantage of their education opportunities and trying hard can easily maintain a straight B average at least (3.0 GPA). If a person has far below a 3.0 and isn't in an engineering program, I can almost guarantee that the person wasn't trying as hard as they could have.

Sure, the difference between a 3.25 and a 3.75 may be due to laziness or may be due to other factors, but the difference between a 2.6 and a 3.1 is IMO definitely (at least in part) due to laziness/lack of motivation.

The difference between a 2.6 and 3.1 is irrelevant to the med school process because the former wouldn't even be considered. The 3.25 vs 3.75 would be the ones in running and the variability in GPA could be due to many factors. The MCAT is the one true standardized metric that can be compared between applicants which is why I think it holds a lot of weight.

 

[The_InsideR123]

The difference between a 2.6 and 3.1 is irrelevant to the med school process because the former wouldn't even be considered. The 3.25 vs 3.75 would be the ones in running and the variability in GPA could be due to many factors. The MCAT is the one true standardized metric that can be compared between applicants which is why I think it holds a lot of weight.

Uhh if a 2.6 wouldn't even be considered then of course the difference is relevant to the med school application process. Less than a 3.0 indicates you don't have the maturity to study well for classes, while GPAs between 3.0 and 4.0 may distinguish aptitude. I agree that the MCAT can and should hold more weight than GPA, but it's also a little unsettling that someone who just kind of slacks off and doesn't do their best in undergrad and gets by with a 3.5 and then crams a few months before the MCAT for a 99th percentile could possibly be more advantaged over a student who works really hard to maintain a 3.9 and only gets 90th percentile on the MCAT.

 

[lolpremed22]

Uhh if a 2.6 wouldn't even be considered then of course the difference is relevant to the med school application process. Less than a 3.0 indicates you don't have the maturity to study well for classes, while GPAs between 3.0 and 4.0 may distinguish aptitude.

What I meant is that you would never compare who has a greater advantage between those 2 students with those GPAs because the 2.6 is never even in the running.

I agree that the MCAT can and should hold more weight than GPA, but it's also a little unsettling that someone who just kind of slacks off and doesn't do their best in undergrad and gets by with a 3.5 and then crams a few months before the MCAT for a 99th percentile could possibly be more advantaged over a student who works really hard to maintain a 3.9 and only gets 90th percentile on the MCAT.

I agree with what you're saying in the scenario you presented, but I don't think GPA can be interpreted that way in most cases. One's GPA can be affected by various factors, and many of these factors vary drastically across not only different universities, but also different courses within a university. If the 3.5 in your scenario worked just as hard as the 3.9 and got a 521 while the 3.9 got a 513, it makes you wonder what factors caused the scores to turn out that way. I think a 3.5 is a bit low, but if it was a 3.7 + 521 vs 3.9 + 513, I definitely wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the 3.7 didn't work as hard as the 3.9.

 

[SuaveCardigans]

I disagree. GPA tests not only intelligence but work ethic. A high MCAT doesn't compensate for a low GPA. Brilliance doesn't offset laziness.

One has to work for a high MCAT as well. Its not like the ~300 people who score in the 100th percentile didnt study hard, in fact I would wager the overwhelming majority studied harder and more effectively than the average test taker.

 

[premeds_r_dumb_123]

I disagree. GPA tests not only intelligence but work ethic. A high MCAT doesn't compensate for a low GPA. Brilliance doesn't offset laziness.

you're not addressing my point. High GPA doesnt mean anything when everyone has a high GPA.

 

[premeds_r_dumb_123]

The mathematics of GPA weakens the notion that it tests work ethic. If someone messed up in first year of college with sub-2.0 GPA, few years of 4.0 GPA performance will result in barely below 3.5 GPA. Also not to mention that acquiring a 3.9+ GPA at top tier universities is very difficult since students on average have high SAT/ACT scores and are graded on bell curves.

The notion that a low GPA represents laziness is inaccurate.

GPA inflation is more common at highly ranked schools.

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21615616-not-what-it-used-be-grade-expectations

 

[Redpancreas]

According to the LizzyM scale it does. But it seems way too good to be true.

How can:
3.7 and 520 = 4.0 and 517 in competitiveness?
3.5 and 521 = 3.6 and 520 = 4.0 and 516?

Or in the lower range of MCAT:
3.8 and 514 = 4.0 and 512?


It just seems crazy to me that a 3.7 and 520 could equal a 4.0 and 517 when a 3 point jump in MCAT is much easier to achieve than a .3 difference in GPA.

On the new score I dont think it works as well as on the old score. From what I've been told two scores on the 5XX scale can be the same score on the 3X. It's probably every 1-2 points on the new mcat is .1 in GPA.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

when a 3 point jump in MCAT is much easier to achieve than a .3 difference in GPA.

Lol....

 

[lolpremed22]

Lol....

Do you disagree? lol

 

[DokM3m3]

Do you disagree? lol

Depends on what 3 points you're reffering to.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Do you disagree? lol

People who talk like this usually haven't taken the MCAT yet.