Has anyone ever gotten a 45?

[Hindubhaisaab]

See thread title

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hindubhaisaab]

Oh and to the OP, of course it is possible to get a 45. If you can get 15s on each section they aren't going to change your score in one of the section just so you don't have a 45.

If it isn't possible to get a 45 that implies either that AAMC uses a different scale to score different people's tests on the same MCAT, or that if someone gets all the questions correct AAMC artificially lowers the score on one section and nobody who took that MCAT could get a 15 on that section.

Yeah I totally agree, I actually never thought that it was impossible, its just that I've never heard of anyone getting over a 42 so I was wondering if anyone had heard of someone getting a 45. Its kinda weird to think that it has never happened, I mean I think it must have considering how many people take the test (whether or not it was by luck). How about we start a pot for the person who gets it, i'll put in a dollar for every test that goes by, it'll be like hitting the jackpot and emptying the fund. Anyone else interested?

 

[Hindubhaisaab]

IMO, your set-up is still too restrictive. I'd argue that 30-32 is competitive, 33-35 is very competitive, and 36+ is stellar. To put this into perspective, a 30 puts you in the top quartile of all test-takers, while a 33 puts you in the top 10%. If you score above a 35, you're in the top 5% of all test-takers. There are only a few thousand people who manage to score in the 36+ range each year out of nearly 70,000 test-takers. This is why I say there really isn't much additional advantage once you get above a 35.

I know what your saying, but I have to disagree with you slightly. I agree that a score of 30+ is competitive, but don't you think that the advantage gained by getting a 40 rather than a 35 is huge? I certainly do, especially if you look at the top schools where the AVERAGE is around a 36, that means plenty of people score higher than that who get accepted. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about considering you got 40+, and I'm sure you know that people who score in that range typically get scholarships (I know a guy who got a 42 and is getting $15000 a year at Oregon), I mean, that sounds pretty advantageous if you ask me.

 

[student1799]

I know what your saying, but I have to disagree with you slightly. I agree that a score of 30+ is competitive, but don't you think that the advantage gained by getting a 40 rather than a 35 is huge?

If you look at the graph on p. 27 of the MSAR (which shows # of applicants accepted and not accepted at each MCAT score), you'll see that about 80% of applicants scoring 35 are admitted to med school, while for those scoring 40, nearly 100% were admitted. 100% (almost) is pretty good, true, but it's only 25% higher than 80%. Not what I'd call a "huge" advantage.

On top of that, look at the statistical odds of getting a 40 vs. a 35. For the 2007 MCAT, 2% of test takers got a 35, while only 0.3% (about 203 people) got a 40. OK, those 203 people were in great shape, but there were about 18,000 other applicants admitted to med school who didn't have one. Ergo, it can't possibly be an important factor in med school admissions overall.

 

[BlueElmo]

IMO, your set-up is still too restrictive. I'd argue that 30-32 is competitive, 33-35 is very competitive, and 36+ is stellar. To put this into perspective, a 30 puts you in the top quartile of all test-takers, while a 33 puts you in the top 10%. If you score above a 35, you're in the top 5% of all test-takers. There are only a few thousand people who manage to score in the 36+ range each year out of nearly 70,000 test-takers. This is why I say there really isn't much additional advantage once you get above a 35.

Since you scored a 43 and you are in medical school, I will take your word as the law.

 

[StayingSteady]

Hey, just out of curiosity... anyone got a 45 on a PRACTICE test (and I mean legitimately)?

 

[scaredoflife]

Man yeah I would go nuts 45 but more nuts for a 30 too. I would be content with a 30, 45 is crazy. The guy on 21 got a 44 and he was trying to get a free ride to harvard.

 

[QofQuimica]

I know what your saying, but I have to disagree with you slightly. I agree that a score of 30+ is competitive, but don't you think that the advantage gained by getting a 40 rather than a 35 is huge? I certainly do, especially if you look at the top schools where the AVERAGE is around a 36, that means plenty of people score higher than that who get accepted. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about considering you got 40+, and I'm sure you know that people who score in that range typically get scholarships (I know a guy who got a 42 and is getting $15000 a year at Oregon), I mean, that sounds pretty advantageous if you ask me.

No, I don't think there is very much advantage to continuing to raise your score once you get above a 35, not even for scholarship purposes.

Instead of looking at the whole picture, premeds understandably tend to over-estimate the importance of specific aspects of the app and fixate on one or two things like MCAT scores. However, the top rock star applicants are well-rounded and excellent in *every* category, not just one or two. In other words, they have a stellar (36+) MCAT, a stellar (3.8+) GPA, stellar ECs above and beyond what the typical premed has, stellar LORs that say things like "this student is one of the best I have ever taught in the past two decades", compelling essays, and excellent interviews. There are surprisingly few people who excel in all of these areas. If such a person also happens to be a diversity applicant, so much the better. (Note that by "diversity," I don't only mean race; disadvantaged status, age, geographic origin, and other factors can also qualify someone as a diversity applicant.)

You do not have the advantage of having seen your friend's entire app, nor his LORs or interview scores. The med school admissions process is actually quite subjective, much more than most premeds realize. There is really nothing objective to differentiate a person with a 36 MCAT from a 42 MCAT if they had comparable GPAs. Beyond that point, all of the subjective factors tend to be what makes the difference in who receives the acceptance or scholarship. As you go through the process yourself, you will begin to see that there is often not much rhyme or reason to it. For example, how do you explain rationally why school A rejected me presecondary (yes, even with a 43 MCAT), while school B accepted me with a full scholarship?

Since you scored a 43 and you are in medical school, I will take your word as the law.

You should never take anyone's word as the law; all idols have clay feet. But, I do happen to know a bit about this process from the other side.

 

[Hindubhaisaab]

Instead of looking at the whole picture, premeds understandably tend to over-estimate the importance of specific aspects of the app and fixate on one or two things like MCAT scores. However, the top rock star applicants are well-rounded and excellent in *every* category, not just one or two. In other words, they have a stellar (36+) MCAT, a stellar (3.8+) GPA, stellar ECs above and beyond what the typical premed has, stellar LORs that say things like "this student is one of the best I have ever taught in the past two decades", compelling essays, and excellent interviews. There are surprisingly few people who excel in all of these areas. If such a person also happens to be a diversity applicant, so much the better. (Note that by "diversity," I don't only mean race; disadvantaged status, age, geographic origin, and other factors can also qualify someone as a diversity applicant.)

You do not have the advantage of having seen your friend's entire app, nor his LORs or interview scores. The med school admissions process is actually quite subjective, much more than most premeds realize. There is really nothing objective to differentiate a person with a 36 MCAT from a 42 MCAT if they had comparable GPAs. Beyond that point, all of the subjective factors tend to be what makes the difference in who receives the acceptance or scholarship. As you go through the process yourself, you will begin to see that there is often not much rhyme or reason to it. For example, how do you explain rationally why school A rejected me presecondary (yes, even with a 43 MCAT), while school B accepted me with a full scholarship?

Although I hate being wrong, I can admit it when I am. I understand what you mean, and that makes sense. The only thing I would have to ask you is that have you heard of people who have 36s or 37s getting scholarships? I haven't really thats why I assumed you had to get that kind of score (40+) to even be considered for a scholarship. Besides that, I would say that if you didnt get accepted into a certain school despite your credentials it would have to be because you were not a "good fit" for them (like you were talking about above) or because they thought that you wouldn't be likely to take their acceptance, which looks bad on them (the whole we don't want to be a safety school deal).

 

[QofQuimica]

Although I hate being wrong, I can admit it when I am. I understand what you mean, and that makes sense. The only thing I would have to ask you is that have you heard of people who have 36s or 37s getting scholarships? I haven't really thats why I assumed you had to get that kind of score (40+) to even be considered for a scholarship. Besides that, I would say that if you didnt get accepted into a certain school despite your credentials it would have to be because you were not a "good fit" for them (like you were talking about above) or because they thought that you wouldn't be likely to take their acceptance, which looks bad on them (the whole we don't want to be a safety school deal).

Yes, I know several people with MCATs in the 30s who have scholarships.

I agree with you that School A probably decided that I wasn't a good fit based upon some subjective criteria. I contacted them after they rejected me and was not able to ever get a straight answer. Ironically, when I was first applying, this school was my number one choice. I was so convinced that I wanted to attend this school that had I been accepted there on Oct. 15, I probably would have withdrawn everywhere else. In response to your other suggestion, no, it was not an unranked school. Interestingly, I got accepted to all of the unranked schools to which I applied, and I seriously considered attending one of them.

I see it this way: med schools aren't charities. No matter where they fall on USNWR's list, they all want to get the best students they can possibly get (however they may define "best"). Sure, if you walk into the interview and act like they're beneath you just because of your test score, you shouldn't be surprised when the rejection letter comes. But the admissions process is sort of like falling in love. Assuming the other person meets certain basic criteria you may have (ex. religion, education level, physical attractiveness, etc.), there is really not a rational reason why you fall in love with one person and not another who is equally "qualified" to be your significant other. Likewise, med schools see you on paper and decide they want to get to know you better or cut you loose. You visit them and decide you want to commit or not commit. The final process of choosing among multiple acceptances to awesome schools is really not any more rational than the process med schools use to choose among hundreds of awesome applicants. I had six schools offer me a full scholarship, and I liked all of them a lot. Ultimately, I chose my medical school because of my gut feeling, not because it is objectively better than any of the other schools that accepted me.

 

[prudvi]

my Kaplan tutor scored a 45.

 

[TwoPaddles]

Now, I don't know if this is true or not. And I'll probably never be sure until I meet someone for myself who got a 44 or 45. But both sides make at least some sense to me.

The "possible" scores are 0-45 correct? But no one can make less than a 3 because you can't get a 0 on a section. Even if you get them all wrong, you still get a 1. So why is the "possible" score allowed to be wrong on one end but not on the other? I've heard is that for every 1 there is a 45, every 2 the is a 44, etc. So is this is the case, 43 would be the highest.

Sleepy makes a good point, too. SDN is full of super obsessed pre-meds. Why has no one here gotten a 45? Every question has a logical answer. I mean going back over practice tests, we all see the solutions. Maybe no one's fessed up or something. I know I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of sharing that.

However, like other posters have pointed out. The sections are supposed to be scored separately, or so we think. Why would someone who got every question right get a lower score on some section, just because they did really well on the other sections? However, I don't know exactly how the MCAT is scored. Maybe they do take the other sections into account. Does anyone know besides the MCAT people themselves?

However, in my honest opinion, does it really matter all that much? A 43 is good enough. No med school is gonna turn down a 43 and think, "well if they had a 45, we would have accepted them." It's about the total package.

Sure, it would be awesome to be able to say you got a 45. But it's like every other test in the world. Once you pass it and move on to the next step, no one cares anymore. Honestly, who hear cares about what you got on the ACT or SAT anymore? Once we're in med school, the MCAT will be just the same. It's all about just getting in.

Just my .02, take it with a grain of salt. (And all other cliches that may be appropriate in this situation)

 

[SN2ed]

Thread closed. Please do not bump threads that are 2 years old, especially when there have been recent threads on the topic.