Done with the MCAT, now looking for school's averages...

[solitude]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I just slayed the MCAT beast today. After a night of celebration, I've been searching MSTP websites to compile average GPAs and MCATs (I don't apply for another year) so that I can interpret my scores when they are released after the painful 2-month wait. But, I've failed miserably. Out of the 11 schools I checked, only WashU reports their MSTP averages. Has anybody else already compiled this information, or can point me in the right direction? As I mentioned, I don't apply for another year, so I've yet to obtain an MSAR. Thanks.

 

[hateroftheyear]

fellow duke student here, applying MSTP this cycle. no need to waste time compiling data from individual schools. as a general rule of thumb, the very best schools top out at around 35-36 MCAT, with the highest being Wash U (36R, right?). schools in the 10-20 range have average MCATs around 34-35, and other MD/PhD programs are feasible with 32-34. 30-32 is best for non-MSTPs or less competitive programs. below a 30 is problematic, though getting accepted with such a score is certainly not unheard of.

hope this helps.

 

[rishi]

I agree with hateroftheyear that there's no point at searching for individual school averages cuz thats a real pain. But if you go here: www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/
youll find the national averages for mstp's (it's in the annual conferences section) and a lot of other interesting stuff. But as hateroftheyear said, it's a 3.7, 34 average for all the MSTPs

 

[solitude]

fellow duke student here, applying MSTP this cycle. no need to waste time compiling data from individual schools. as a general rule of thumb, the very best schools top out at around 35-36 MCAT, with the highest being Wash U (36R, right?). schools in the 10-20 range have average MCATs around 34-35, and other MD/PhD programs are feasible with 32-34. 30-32 is best for non-MSTPs or less competitive programs. below a 30 is problematic, though getting accepted with such a score is certainly not unheard of.

hope this helps.

Yeah WashU was the highest I could find, but, in fact, it was the only MSTP of the 10 or so which I searched that even displayed MSTP-specific averages. Thanks for the help. All I can do is wait for the score!

 

[hawkeey]

Getting above a 30 should be sufficient. To be honest, for most schools this is not a crucial factor. You really just need enough.

The data from WashU these days is suggesting that WashU is putting a lot of emphasis on MCAT scores to boost its numbers. This is quite silly if you ask me.

MSTPs care about research experience primarily, followed by academic performance. They are selecting for excellence in an MD/PhD program so they are looking for people who are going to pass their MD courses and be expediant in completing their PhD. The MCAT does little to inform either of those criteria other than showing that you are competent. A lot of what it takes to do the MCAT is learning the strategies to take the test rather than the cummulative knowledge from your undergraduate courses. I believe a lot of people obtain the necessary composite knowledge by the end of their sophomore year in college.

So get above a 30, and hopefully get in the range of 35 or higher (98th or 99th percentile). Make sure you have some clinical and research experience combined with good grades. Make the case to yourself and your interviewers about why you want to do an MD/PhD. If you can do this, some place will accept you - just apply far and wide.

 

[Maebea]

The data from WashU these days is suggesting that WashU is putting a lot of emphasis on MCAT scores to boost its numbers. This is quite silly if you ask me.

MD-PhD programs are quite collegial and share information with one another, so I have had access to data from many programs over the years. It is from this perspective that I can say that the average MCAT of entering students is practically identical for most MD-PhD programs. Please refer back to a post I made several months ago that showed the distribution of MCAT scores of my program's matriculants in recent years. You will find that this distribution is repeated at other schools, whether they be WashU, Hopkins, P&S, UCLA, Emory, Harvard, etc. Furthermore, the average scores at most schools have been stable, rising perhaps one or two points since the adoption of the current MCAT 15 years ago.

Your assertion that a particular MD-PhD program is the mother of all MCAT mongers and that it has recently changed its admissions criteria to give more weight to MCAT scores is both spurious and lacking in rigor (you used an n of 1). The fact is that MCAT scores are a minor consideration for MD-PhD programs. MCATs have little predictive value beyond USMLE Step 1 scores. They do not predict an individual's future success as a clinician or a researcher. To make high MCAT scores a critical factor in admission would be more than silly: it would be suicidal. Please give MD-PhD programs credit for having figured this out. Some of these programs have been around for more than 40 years, and they have enough experience to know the proper value of MCAT scores.

The rest of your post is accurate.

 

[solitude]

So would it be accurate to say that if one's MCAT is mid 30's or higher, their admission will depend almost entirely on non-MCAT factors? (I'm talking about MSTP admissions only.)

MD-PhD programs are quite collegial and share information with one another, so I have had access to data from many programs over the years. It is from this perspective that I can say that the average MCAT of entering students is practically identical for most MD-PhD programs. Please refer back to a post I made several months ago that showed the distribution of MCAT scores of my program's matriculants in recent years. You will find that this distribution is repeated at other schools, whether they be WashU, Hopkins, P&S, UCLA, Emory, Harvard, etc. Furthermore, the average scores at most schools have been stable, rising perhaps one or two points since the adoption of the current MCAT 15 years ago.

Your assertion that a particular MD-PhD program is the mother of all MCAT mongers and that it has recently changed its admissions criteria to give more weight to MCAT scores is both spurious and lacking in rigor (you used an n of 1). The fact is that MCAT scores are a minor consideration for MD-PhD programs. MCATs have little predictive value beyond USMLE Step 1 scores. They do not predict an individual's future success as a clinician or a researcher. To make high MCAT scores a critical factor in admission would be more than silly: it would be suicidal. Please give MD-PhD programs credit for having figured this out. Some of these programs have been around for more than 40 years, and they have enough experience to know the proper value of MCAT scores.

The rest of your post is accurate.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

I think MSTP admissions is a balance of MCAT scores versus research experience though. The administration needs to make sure of high scores so that their program remains ranked high and competitive. imo, with all RESEARCH being equal (in this case, they might, since so many people applying have extensive experience) they will certainly still choose the one with higher MCAT score.

 

[zigeroo]

I think MSTP admissions is a balance of MCAT scores versus research experience though. The administration needs to make sure of high scores so that their program remains ranked high and competitive. imo, with all RESEARCH being equal (in this case, they might, since so many people applying have extensive experience) they will certainly still choose the one with higher MCAT score.

Well based on what Maebea has written, it seems that the balance is much more tilted over to the research experience end of the scale than the MCAT end.

 

[Maebea]

So would it be accurate to say that if one's MCAT is mid 30's or higher, their admission will depend almost entirely on non-MCAT factors? (I'm talking about MSTP admissions only.)

Yes. A candidate with a 34 MCAT and outstanding research will be offered admission over a candidate with a 43 MCAT and pedestrian research every time. Individuals are admitted based on our assesment of their ability to become independent scientists and competent physicians. MCAT scores have no predictive value on the former, and marginal predictive value on the latter. Our experience has been that individuals who score below a 30 on the MCAT will have difficulty (sometimes significant difficulty) with the preclinical medical curriculum.

SpeakLittleB does have a point: if ALL other factors are equal, programs will most likely pick the candidate with the higher MCAT. However, I contend that this does not happen often that all other factors are equal. There are factors outside of research experience, like personality, family background, the program's desire for geographic diversity, the candidates outside interests, etc., that can tip the balance in favor of an applicant. If all these other factors cancel out, then the higher MCAT would get the nod.

 

[SeventhSon]

MCAT scores have no predictive value on the former, and marginal predictive value on the latter. Our experience has been that individuals who score below a 30 on the MCAT will have difficulty (sometimes significant difficulty) with the preclinical medical curriculum.

it is beyond me how/why people continue to insist this. MCAT tends to test your ability to think critically, quickly, and evaluate literature. While previous research is the best bellweather to indicate research potential, the saying the MCAT has no predictive value, i think, is absurd. same with gpa.

 

[solitude]

Thanks for the info. How exactly does family background come into play? I would assume those who were significantly disadvantaged are afforded more leniency, and vice versa. True? What about geographic diversity? It helps to come from a state with few applicants?

Yes. A candidate with a 34 MCAT and outstanding research will be offered admission over a candidate with a 43 MCAT and pedestrian research every time. Individuals are admitted based on our assesment of their ability to become independent scientists and competent physicians. MCAT scores have no predictive value on the former, and marginal predictive value on the latter. Our experience has been that individuals who score below a 30 on the MCAT will have difficulty (sometimes significant difficulty) with the preclinical medical curriculum.

SpeakLittleB does have a point: if ALL other factors are equal, programs will most likely pick the candidate with the higher MCAT. However, I contend that this does not happen often that all other factors are equal. There are factors outside of research experience, like personality, family background, the program's desire for geographic diversity, the candidates outside interests, etc., that can tip the balance in favor of an applicant. If all these other factors cancel out, then the higher MCAT would get the nod.

 

[Giro]

How high the MCAT has to be for MSTP programs is debatable, but Wash U is a numbers ***** and we all know it. Countless arguments have been made to assert that their high average comes from the large group of MSTP, but the simple, undeniable fact is they will take you for md (or md/phd for that matter) as long as you have high numbers. This is what crappy schools do to continue their pointless, oft-ridiculed climb of the US news ranking.

 

[Shatterstar17]

Have to agree. MCAT has a higher validity coefficient than undergrad GPA in predicting medical school GPA and USMLE scores.

http://www.aamc.org/data/aib/cime/vol3no2.pdf

Of course they also found that using them both was best (not a surprise, and pretty much what med schools do).

Given that there's no data I know of on MCAT predicting how good a researcher you'll be, that other point is definitely debatable. However, I'd eat my hat if they weren't correlated at all, though I'm sure the previous previous poster was being a bit hyperbolic.

it is beyond me how/why people continue to insist this. MCAT tends to test your ability to think critically, quickly, and evaluate literature. While previous research is the best bellweather to indicate research potential, the saying the MCAT has no predictive value, i think, is absurd. same with gpa.

 

[Maebea]

Seventh Son:
I may very well be wrong on the point that MCATs do not have significant predictive value for sucess as a researcher; after all, my experience is limited to a few hundred MD-PhD students over the course of a couple of decades. Undoubtedly, individuals who have not been intimately involved with MD-PhD training have a much clearer perspective since they do not have their vision cluttered by years of empiracal evidence. I will concede the point to those with superior wisdom, and refrain from future comment on the subject.

Solitude:
I have often seen a streak of populism running through admissions committees. Individuals who have struggled against great odds to accomplish a lot are looked on more favorably (all other things being equal) than those individuals who had the foresight to be born into better circumstances. America loves winners, but we love underdog winners most of all.
Geography can come into play because most programs like to have diversity in their programs in many ways. Having students from different regions is seen as a plus. Geography by itself is not a major factor; it is part of the mix of things that create the overall picture of a candidate. (No need for anyone to pull up stakes by the Charles River and move to Elko, Nevada.)

Giro:
No doubt about it, WashU is a numbers ***** and a crappy school. Don't you hate it when redneck posers take a bath, put on a clean shirt and expect to be admitted to the country club? (It's Al Czervik at Bushwood Country Club all over.) Everyone with MCATs above 30 should refuse to apply to WashU; that would force them to take students with lower scores and would cause them to drop to about 57th in the med school rankings. It would serve those ba$****$ right.
Fact is, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, numbers ******. This goes for applicants as well as programs.

Shatterstar17:
Thank you for the civil and well-reasoned nature of your post. I base my contention on an analysis of research commendations that are given to MD-PhDs in my program. The commendations go to between 15 and 25 percent of the graduating cohort. Individuals with high MCATs are no more likely to receive the commendation than individuals with low MCATs. In fact, commended individuals have an average MCAT that is 6/10 of a point lower than the average for the entire graduating cohort. Admittedly, this is not a great difference, but it convinces me that higher MCATs do not necessarily correlate to higher achievement in the lab.

 

[Hohenheim]

Maebea:

A question for you if you dont mind:
How does your program fare with respect to deadlines and time? Do you intuitively privilege people who have their apps in on time - because, that signifies good habits?

I'm really curious about this - do you have any info about other schools?

I can understand a "first come, first served" approach to deadlines - but say someone turns in his primaries on Oct 14 and gets his secondaries done before the end of the month - any disadvantage here?

 

[Maebea]

Maebea:

A question for you if you dont mind:
How does your program fare with respect to deadlines and time? Do you intuitively privilege people who have their apps in on time - because, that signifies good habits?

I'm really curious about this - do you have any info about other schools?

I can understand a "first come, first served" approach to deadlines - but say someone turns in his primaries on Oct 14 and gets his secondaries done before the end of the month - any disadvantage here?

I do not know that it is a matter of a program favoring early application because it demonstrates good habits. More likely, we infer that late application indicates less interest in a program. But we know that is not necessarily true, as we have plenty of students in the program who applied at, or even after, the deadline. The thing you should consider is that programs usually have a finite number of interview slots. By the time that the application deadline rolls around, a program that gives out interview invitations on a rolling basis may have committed a significant portion of its interview slots. An applicant that applies at the deadling may be competing for one of 20 interview slots, whereas the person that applied early is competing for one of 60 interview slots.

As far as applying by October 14, that would probably not be a problem for most programs, as most have later deadlines. Historically, about a quarter of applications come in the two weeks before the deadline. If you can get your application in 3 or 4 weeks before the deadline, it might mean that there will be a greater number of interview slots available, at those programs that do rolling invitations. For programs that do not issue invitations until after the application deadline, this would be less of an issue.

 

[solitude]

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

Solitude:
I have often seen a streak of populism running through admissions committees. Individuals who have struggled against great odds to accomplish a lot are looked on more favorably (all other things being equal) than those individuals who had the foresight to be born into better circumstances. America loves winners, but we love underdog winners most of all.
Geography can come into play because most programs like to have diversity in their programs in many ways. Having students from different regions is seen as a plus. Geography by itself is not a major factor; it is part of the mix of things that create the overall picture of a candidate. (No need for anyone to pull up stakes by the Charles River and move to Elko, Nevada.)

 

[MrMunkily]

Wow, some people really hate my new school 🙂

 

[QofQuimica]

it is beyond me how/why people continue to insist this. MCAT tends to test your ability to think critically, quickly, and evaluate literature. While previous research is the best bellweather to indicate research potential, the saying the MCAT has no predictive value, i think, is absurd. same with gpa.

I wonder if this is really true. If it were, would we not expect to see that test-takers with graduate science degrees and other professional degrees that emphasize critical thinking should score the highest on the test? And yet, this has not been my experience as an MCAT teacher over the past ten years. The (admittedly) few students I've had with PhDs didn't do outrageously well compared to their college student classmates, and in fact, the oldest students statistically score the lowest on the MCAT in general. I am the exception that proves the rule here. Also, considering that many successful researchers earn PhDs only, and considering that many highly successful senior physician scientists would probably completely bomb the MCAT if they had to take it right here and now, I think that Maebea has a point about the low predictive value of MCAT scores concerning who will make a successful researcher, assuming that one's scores are high enough to establish one's ability to handle the academic load in M1-2. Even GRE scores aren't particularly predictive on this point beyond a certain minimum competence level. 🙂

MrMunkily, I don't think that people "hate" Wash U per se. Wash U has the highest average MCAT score (38 according to this year's MSAR) of any medical school in the country, and I think that's a big part of why the school is kind of a lightning rod for the frustrated. 😉 The school is also extremely aggressive about recruiting the applicants that it wants, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's bound to engender some resentment. FWIW, I applied to Wash U as an MD-only applicant, and it is a tremendous research powerhouse with a simply enormous MSTP. I have yet to meet anyone who actually visited the school and didn't come away impressed with the programs, facilities, and research opportunities. I for one will definitely be applying back there for residency. 🙂

 

[MrMunkily]

I know, I was just being a little silly.

BTW; I am WAY below that quoted average.

 

[Giro]

You know what? People don't criticize Wash U because they were rejected, they criticize it because they are tired of the same BS coming from their brochure and recruiting events that amount to nothing but "we are ranked by USnews!" Wash U got into top 10 because of numbers whoring, and just because they may have a pretty campus doesn't make it "impressive." St. Louis is a dump by the way, so it's also true that Wash U only get students that were rejected by other top 10 and lower ranked schools. Honestly, would you choose Wash U over Columbia or Stanford? In the end, the class at Wash U is composed of high GPA/MCAT but no life, socially-awkward gunners, and somehow the administration wants to perpetuate this so they can "beat Harvard." Now, some have claimed that Wash U is a "research powerhouse," but compare it with any ranking of research productivity using impact factor and citation as the criteria, you will see that Wash U is not even in the top 20s. The biggest myth on SDN has to be this non-existent reputation of Wash U as a good medical school; why are you guys buying into it and boosting their app numbers?

 

[QofQuimica]

You know what? People don't criticize Wash U because they were rejected, they criticize it because they are tired of the same BS coming from their brochure and recruiting events that amount to nothing but "we are ranked by USnews!" Wash U got into top 10 because of numbers whoring, and just because they may have a pretty campus doesn't make it "impressive." St. Louis is a dump by the way, so it's also true that Wash U only get students that were rejected by other top 10 and lower ranked schools. Honestly, would you choose Wash U over Columbia or Stanford? In the end, the class at Wash U is composed of high GPA/MCAT but no life, socially-awkward gunners, and somehow the administration wants to perpetuate this so they can "beat Harvard." Now, some have claimed that Wash U is a "research powerhouse," but compare it with any ranking of research productivity using impact factor and citation as the criteria, you will see that Wash U is not even in the top 20s. The biggest myth on SDN has to be this non-existent reputation of Wash U as a good medical school; why are you guys buying into it and boosting their app numbers?

I assume you've heard of something called the Human Genome Project? It's arguably one of the greatest recent achievements in the biomedical sciences, if not THE greatest. Wash U was one of twenty institutions worldwide that were part of the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, along with Stanford, I might add. They are also very strong in several other departments like immunology and infectious diseases. On the clinical side, their hospitals (Barnes-Jewish) are consistently ranked highly.

If you're asking me personally whether I'd choose Wash U over Columbia and Stanford, well, I will answer that question by saying that I applied to and interviewed at Wash U, but I didn't apply to Columbia or Stanford. Ironically, that decision was mostly based upon location. This may surprise you, but not everyone wants to live in NYC or CA, though they're great places to visit. One person's dump is another's paradise. Finally, I must say that for a person who deplores numbers whoring so much, you certainly do banter an awful lot of them about yourself. 🙂

 

[Giro]

Ooh, Gosh, one of *twenty* institutions that sequenced the genome! Wow, I am very impressed by the ingenuity of pressing a button on the automated sequencer! Somebody call the Karolinska Institute!
The fact is there has been no significant research at Wash U for a long, long time. They like to fool premeds into thinking they have 19 Nobel prize winners, when in fact they only have three: the economics one is unrelated to medicine, and the rest are *former* faculty members that won the prize at other institutions. You can see Wash U's desperation and insecurity when they even list people who only spent one year there, or people who just did a residency. By that standard, Havard and Hopkins would each have over fifty nobel prize winners in medicine alone!
Looks at how many HHMI and NAS members Wash U has, and compare it with say, Yale and University of Washington, two lower ranked schools. Wash U simply does not measure up, even if we focus on research alone. On the clinical side, where would you go? Barnes or UCSF Med. Ctr.? Barnes or Columbia Presbyterian? The answer is obvious.

 

[henge]

I came across the following publication from Stanford which indicates that Stanford MSTP "Average MCAT scores and GPA have also increased (32.5 / 3.78 to 45.9 / 3.89)." The 45.9 must be a typo; should it be 35.9?
http://medstrategicplan.stanford.edu/retreat06/files/P4.21-MSTP.pdf

 

[gbwillner]

You know what? People don't criticize Wash U because they were rejected, they criticize it because they are tired of the same BS coming from their brochure and recruiting events that amount to nothing but "we are ranked by USnews!" Wash U got into top 10 because of numbers whoring, and just because they may have a pretty campus doesn't make it "impressive." St. Louis is a dump by the way, so it's also true that Wash U only get students that were rejected by other top 10 and lower ranked schools. Honestly, would you choose Wash U over Columbia or Stanford? In the end, the class at Wash U is composed of high GPA/MCAT but no life, socially-awkward gunners, and somehow the administration wants to perpetuate this so they can "beat Harvard." Now, some have claimed that Wash U is a "research powerhouse," but compare it with any ranking of research productivity using impact factor and citation as the criteria, you will see that Wash U is not even in the top 20s. The biggest myth on SDN has to be this non-existent reputation of Wash U as a good medical school; why are you guys buying into it and boosting their app numbers?

I don't think you're being serious.... Wash U has a strong reputation, not just as a med school but in many residency programs. The IM program is the 4th highest attended by MSTPs. Wash U ranks 5th in total research $$ from NIH with 800 awards and $377 M, with 728 research and 41 training grants. They also have the 2nd largest MSTP class (if I remember correctly).

I agree that St. Luis sucks arse, though.

 

[_ian]

I don't think you're being serious.... Wash U has a strong reputation, not just as a med school but in many residency programs. The IM program is the 4th highest attended by MSTPs. Wash U ranks 5th in total research $$ from NIH with 800 awards and $377 M, with 728 research and 41 training grants. They also have the 2nd largest MSTP class (if I remember correctly).

Furthermore, just take a look at some of the publications their faculty puts out. I can't speak for the MSTP, but the strength of their neuroscience program certainly speaks for itself through the publication record.

Of course, Giro says that they're lacking on impact factor compared to others, and maybe that's true -- can someone tell me where can you search by school? ISI doesn't seem to let you.