Double standards

[Fried Plantaris]

Schools report their MCAT statistics based on their matriculants best score however at the same time they critique applicants on their average of separate attempts. Wouldn't it make better sense for them to use the same standards they're using for their reporting?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Moko]

Schools report their MCAT statistics based on their matriculants best score however at the same time they critique applicants on their average of separate attempts. Wouldn't it make better sense for them to use the same standards they're using for their reporting?

Yes, but programs try to showcase their best side, much like applicants.
"See how competitive our students are? We also have an innovative, ground-breaking, unique curriculum to boot!"

 

[Fried Plantaris]

That itself is a double standard. See how competitive we are? (although really our avg is lower) Yet applicants don't have that benefit

 

[Spector1]

its a sellers market unfortunately

 

[GrapesofRath]

Those in power and with all the leverage and control are afforded opportunities to do what is in their best interest and makes them look best that those who arent in power and have no leverage can't. Period. Nothing here should come across as any sort of revelation.

 

[Moko]

That itself is a double standard. See how competitive we are? (although really our avg is lower) Yet applicants don't have that benefit

Life's not fair :/

 

[Nietzschelover]

No it wouldnt. Students who have multiple MCAT scores may be accepted because of their best score. They certainly are not accepted because of multiple attempts. To report an average of those scores would mislead applicants into thinking a lower average score is will what gets them in

This...a thousand times! Maybe we can agree on this construction....needing a re-take is not ideal and should be avoided like the plague. That said, a re-take may be needed anyway, and a successful re-take may be a significant factor in what ultimately gets an applicant accepted.

 

[Law2Doc]

That itself is a double standard. See how competitive we are? (although really our avg is lower) Yet applicants don't have that benefit

Not only that. Most schools don't count graduate GPAs for admissions, due to grade inflation issues, but some actually are more than happy to average them in when they want to look more competitive in brochures, publications, etc. But for the reason gonnif mentioned, you don't want to use this advertisement number as an applicant because it might give you an unrealistic benchmark.

 

[Pacna]

I find it odd that all schools have above-average USMLE step 1 scores.

 

[Lucca]

I find it odd that all schools have above-average USMLE step 1 scores.

This *might* be possible if the score distribution is approximately bimodal so that nationally the average is X but at any one school the average is X+1 because the mean is being skewed at every single school by a smaller N and two peaks.


The more likely case is that someone is lying.

 

[Pacna]

This *might* be possible if the score distribution is approximately bimodal so that nationally the average is X but at any one school the average is X+1 because the mean is being skewed at every single school by a smaller N and two peaks.


The more likely case is that someone is lying.

That's called mental gymnastics. Occam's razor.

 

[Mad Jack]

I find it odd that all schools have above-average USMLE step 1 scores.

About half the people taking the USMLE each year are IMGs and DOs.

 

[Pacna]

About half the people taking the USMLE each year are IMGs and DOs.

I know IMG status requires higher score than US grad, but I would think that also means IMG = higher average step 1 score. Is that not true?

 

[Mad Jack]

I know IMG status requires higher score than US grad, but I would think that also means IMG = higher average step 1 score. Is that not true?

Not everyone from out of the US does well. On average, IMGs and FMGs fare worse than their US counterparts on the USMLE and have a much higher failure rate. The ones that match have better scores than the ones that don't, and those scores are still lower, on average, than their US counterparts.

 

[Pacna]

Not everyone from out of the US does well. On average, IMGs and FMGs fare worse than their US counterparts on the USMLE and have a much higher failure rate. The ones that match have better scores than the ones that don't, and those scores are still lower, on average, than their US counterparts.

Thank you! ~*the more you know*~

 

[Goro]

They're all from Lake Wobegon.

I find it odd that all schools have above-average USMLE step 1 scores.

 

[Pacna]

They're all from Lake Wobegon.

*losing it*

 

[Nietzschelover]

Not only that. Most schools don't count graduate GPAs for admissions, due to grade inflation issues, but some actually are more than happy to average them in when they want to look more competitive in brochures, publications, etc. But for the reason gonnif mentioned, you don't want to use this advertisement number as an applicant because it might give you an unrealistic benchmark.

This works both ways. The MSAR numbers from last year where medians were advertised based on acceptees (to that school) median versus matriculated medians could scare some off from applying to places where they might be very much in line with matriculants to that schools. We see that with how MSAR so far is listing medians this year. A school that has been advertised on MSAR (and all over SDN) as having a 34 or 35 median might actually have a 33 or 34 median in terms of actual matriculants.

 

[Law2Doc]

I know IMG status requires higher score than US grad, but I would think that also means IMG = higher average step 1 score. Is that not true?

Lots of foreigners take the steps, do poorly and never apply. Those that we see in the match are in the minority (?) that did extremely well.

 

[GrapesofRath]

This works both ways. The MSAR numbers from last year where medians were advertised based on acceptees (to that school) median versus matriculated medians could scare some off from applying to places where they might be very much in line with matriculants to that schools. We see that with how MSAR so far is listing medians this year. A school that has been advertised on MSAR (and all over SDN) as having a 34 or 35 median might actually have a 33 or 34 median in terms of actual matriculants.

This year's MSAR was interesting in many regards. Alot of information that is now included that wasnt previously included I simply thought was a case of school's voluntarily choosing/telling MSAR not to include because it was in their best interest to not have this disclosed. Im talking about here now the addition of actual matriculant MCAT medians, number of people taken off the waiting list(although these will vary alot from year to year), applicant MCAT medians, 25th/75th percentile data etc.

Something had to have changed though behind the scenes to cause this transformation and I wonder what exactly it was. Because for a long time MSAR has been relatively constant in the data it will tell you. This year all of a sudden, it's information overload. Maybe it's connected to the idea of "the new MCAT" and a "new era of medical school admission" where now the way things done will be different and the new MCAT served as some form of impetus for a narrative of change and a change in the data MSAR offers.