IQ and MCAT

[Oncie]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I say hard work + critical thinking

This.

 

[Gandyy]

I usually score around a 130-140 on those IQ tests but I have a relatively horrible MCAT score of a 29.

So I mean I don't think there is any correlation at all. lol

 

[Lawpy]

Your IQ is your LizzyM score times 2, everyone knows that.

darkjedi's formula.

Works nicely, as everyone who gets into medical school are smart!

This.

Excellent necrobump to reignite the tensions!

 

[efle]

I'd bet it varies a lot by section and score range, with V most related to IQ followed by PS then BS

 

[Lawpy]

I'd bet it varies a lot by section and score range, with V most related to IQ followed by PS then BS

Given the intense opposition to verbal (the old one, I don't know about the new one) because of its rampant subjectivity, I would have to disagree with that. Smarts have nothing to do in doing well. Just the preparation and guessing the better of two options.

 

[Gandyy]

Given the intense opposition to verbal (the old one, I don't know about the new one) because of its rampant subjectivity, I would have to disagree with that. Smarts have nothing to do in doing well. Just the preparation and guessing the better of two options.

Nah, preparation only gets you so far. Average joes like myself can barely achieve around 30 range after try Harding.

 

[Lawpy]

Nah, preparation only gets you so far. Average joes like myself can barely achieve around 30 range after try Harding.

Average joe is being too modest 😛. What's important is to score consistently on 10-12 range on each section (it's possible with preparation and good mindset to score 13-15 in both sciences). So with the overall range, we're talking confidently from anywhere to a 30 to a 36 with standard prep, and anywhere up to a 42 with optimal prep. 43 and above is just luck.

Verbal is the limiting factor in doing well, and that has more to do with ambiguity and subjectivity more so than being smart. Smart people who are excellent readers landed up getting a 9-10 on verbal. Not-so-regular readers land up on a 13 or 14. Hopefully, the new CARS section accounts for the disparity.

 

[efle]

Given the intense opposition to verbal (the old one, I don't know about the new one) because of its rampant subjectivity, I would have to disagree with that. Smarts have nothing to do in doing well. Just the preparation and guessing the better of two options.

Some people are better at it than others, which can't be explained by more time spent memorizing or even practicing (it resists retake improvement much more than the sciences). What if not intelligence is governing this? And many other things that have been correlated to IQ like SAT and ACT crit reading are the same thing

Average joe is being too modest 😛. What's important is to score consistently on 10-12 range on each section (it's possible with preparation and good mindset to score 13-15 in both sciences). So with the overall range, we're talking confidently from anywhere to a 30 to a 36 with standard prep, and anywhere up to a 42 with optimal prep. 43 and above is just luck.

Verbal is the limiting factor in doing well, and that has more to do with ambiguity and subjectivity more so than being smart. Smart people who are excellent readers landed up getting a 9-10 on verbal. Not-so-regular readers land up on a 13 or 14. Hopefully, the new CARS section accounts for the disparity.

Do you actually believe the average joe can prep their way to a 42?

Reading a lot is not intelligence, so it does not predict V. There are people who can consistently score top 1% / 13-15 and tell you why they answered each question as they did.

 

[Lawpy]

Some people are better at it than others, which can't be explained by more time spent memorizing or even practicing (it resists retake improvement much more than the sciences). What if not intelligence is governing this? And many other things that have been correlated to IQ like SAT and ACT crit reading are the same thing

I think part of the reason why verbal is resistant to improvement has to do with not finding the right strategy. I'm talking going from a 7 to a 10, not from a 10 to a 12. Can "naturally smart" people whiz through verbal and score a 12 without prep? Probably, but that has little to do with smarts more so than "optimally reading", or sustained previous reading for whatever reasons. It's strategy, not smarts.

Do you actually believe the average joe can prep their way to a 42?

Around there yes. By working hard and acing the science sections and doing good in verbal. We're talking around 14-15/10-12/14-15 range at best.

Reading a lot is not intelligence, so it does not predict V. There are people who can consistently score top 1% / 13-15 and tell you why they answered each question as they did.

Being well-read for long periods of time gives a substantial boost to doing well in verbal. There are very little data of well-read people doing subpar (<10 on verbal).

The people who scored top consistently had the right strategy to read the passages naturally. At the bare minimum, they are good test takers.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

I had two professionally administered IQ tests, and I would say the scores correlated well with my SAT and ACT scores, and even more so with my MCAT. I believe that IQ tests are based on evaluating critical reasoning and pattern identification. I think these things are fundamental for doing well on the MCAT. I think if anything, IQ would correlate best to verbal reasoning (CARS) section.

 

[efle]

I think part of the reason why verbal is resistant to improvement has to do with not finding the right strategy. I'm talking going from a 7 to a 10, not from a 10 to a 12. Can "naturally smart" people whiz through verbal and score a 12 without prep? Probably, but that has little to do with smarts more so than "optimally reading", or sustained previous reading for whatever reasons. It's strategy, not smarts.



Around there yes. By working hard and acing the science sections and doing good in verbal. We're talking around 14-15/10-12/14-15 range at best.



Being well-read for long periods of time gives a substantial boost to doing well in verbal. There are very little data of well-read people doing subpar (<10 on verbal).

The people who scored top consistently had the right strategy to read the passages naturally. At the bare minimum, they are good test takers.

It's pure reading comprehension, but to each their own. I assume you will be preparing correctly, so let me be the first to congratulate you on your 42! 😉

But more seriously, I don't know if you've sat down to take one of the old MCAT practice tests...you need more than a good study strategy to beat out 99.9% of the post-weedout premed population

 

[RKBrumbelow]

I had two professionally administered IQ tests, and I would say the scores correlated well with my SAT and ACT scores, and even more so with my MCAT. I believe that IQ tests are based on evaluating critical reasoning and pattern identification. I think these things are fundamental for doing well on the MCAT. I think if anything, IQ would correlate best to verbal reasoning (CARS) section.

IQ also has a substantial portion based on short term memory and memory manipulation. I know in my own case MY tested IQ has been as high as 185 and as low as 85, I am in between that now the biggest difference has been related to recall and object manipulation.

Ultimately IQ is simply a measure of how easily you can learn, not how much you have learned. There are some other factors that come in, but I honestly believe ease of learning to be the real meaning of IQ.

Also, it is relatively safe to say there are not many average IQ range people (85-115) even trying to go into medicine. If we were not above average we would simply be delusional (and may still be I am sure I am somewhat but that isn;t going to stop me now)

 

[Doudline]

IQ also has a substantial portion based on short term memory and memory manipulation. I know in my own case MY tested IQ has been as high as 185 and as low as 85, I am in between that now the biggest difference has been related to recall and object manipulation.

No it hasn't. Don't be a fool.

 

[Hyde]

Hasn't the IQ test been shown to be a terrible indicator of intelligence?

Progressives have "shown" that. Now many states will not allow public schools to administer IQ tests because tests would show kids are not equal in terms of innate intelligence. Here's an overview of why IQ tests fell into disfavor starting around 1993. Congressional Quarterly is the original source.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/vollarj/intelligence_testing.htm

 

[Lawpy]

It's pure reading comprehension, but to each their own. I assume you will be preparing correctly, so let me be the first to congratulate you on your 42! 😉

But more seriously, I don't know if you've sat down to take one of the old MCAT practice tests...you need more than a good study strategy to beat out 99.9% of the post-weedout premed population

Lol i'll be sure to give you an award if that happens 😛

Hard work, good test taking skills, sound mindset, and good luck are all key to doing excellent on the MCAT. The fact that people can whiz by verbal without any prep only shows they have excellent comprehension and great test taking skills.

What i refuse to accept is that scoring high on the MCAT has to do with natural smarts, especially the smarts mesured by "IQ tests".

And to anxious premeds reading this, please do not misinterpret this post. In no way am i saying that scoring a 27-33 makes you less smart/qualified/prepared. It's just a standardized metric to see how students do with the given content background. The MCAT is one of many factors needed to get into medical school, and if you do get into medical school with a low MCAT, you are a smart individual who will succeed in future endeavors.

 

[RKBrumbelow]

No it hasn't. Don't be a fool.

Yes it has. It is amazing what long term brain damage will do to your IQ. And while it is hard work, it is possible to recover substantial portions of it, at least in my case; we have some amazing therapies these days.

 

[altblue]

Some people are smarter, or yes, more intelligent, than others, and it would be unwise to claim that test-taking ability isn't significantly influenced by one's intelligence. You can dress it up all you want and call it "book smarts", " cognitive or academic ability" but the point still stands.

Not sure why the old posters had so much trouble accepting this.

 

[RKBrumbelow]

Not sure why the old posters had so much trouble accepting this.

Their IQ is too low?

*rimshot*
Thank you! thank you. I will be here all week. Please remember to tip your hostess and try the steak.

 

[altblue]

Lol i'll be sure to give you an award if that happens 😛

Hard work, good test taking skills, sound mindset, and good luck are all key to doing excellent on the MCAT. The fact that people can whiz by verbal without any prep only shows they have excellent comprehension and great test taking skills.

What i refuse to accept is that scoring high on the MCAT has to do with natural smarts, especially the smarts mesured by "IQ tests".

And to anxious premeds reading this, please do not misinterpret this post. In no way am i saying that scoring a 27-33 makes you less smart/qualified/prepared. It's just a standardized metric to see how students do with the given content background. The MCAT is one of many factors needed to get into medical school, and if you do get into medical school with a low MCAT, you are a smart individual who will succeed in future endeavors.

The key is also to be smarter than the average student.

 

[Lawpy]

The key is also to be smarter than the average student.

But that assumes the "average student" is bounded some way and cannot score higher no matter what. Which in turn depends on what average means. National average of a 25? The average person can substantially improve with better preparation. Average of 33? It's harder and risks diminishing returns.

Smart is too vague a term, and assessing smarts with IQ tests is literally the worst approach. But having an analytical and reasoning mind is always good. If that is how smarts is defined, then yes, you are correct, but i suggest using the term very loosely.

I wouldn't say someone with a 38 is smarter than someone with a 31. Better prepared, luckier and good test taker, sure. But not smarter in the IQ sense

 

[altblue]

.

 

[RKBrumbelow]

@Lawper , @altblue I think there is some cross messaging going on, you are both saying the same basic things with just some minor differences.
Given the same effort,
Given the same access to materials
Assuming test takers capped their actual knowledge/ test taking ability
Any two test takers will get the same result.

The difference will show up in that the higher IQ individual should have a higher potential test score. Potential, not actual.

Also if a resource such as time is limited, the person with a higher IQ should exceed the person with the lower IQ simply because they are able to acquire and apply more knowledge in the same limited time. But that is when there is a limited resource.

Of course, heck I might be misreading you both. I am tired and my meds are well depleted since it is effectively 1AM.

Have a good night gents.

 

[Lawpy]

True, but I think it's very fair to assume that those who do above average on the test are, in part, generally smarter and have had that advantage. That partially explains why they do so well in the first place.

I'm talking more about 25 (or less!) to mid 30s. There probably is a point of diminishing return to 38 with regards to effectively measuring capability. Then again, I'm just about to start prepping for the mcat. 😉

Defining intelligence is splitting hairs anyway. Im making a very broad generalization, but I know a couple of brilliant people, many smart people, many average people, and many dumb people. I think we could agree about who we would call "smart" or "dumb" in our day to day lives...

It's essentially many factors involved that probably (and loosely) combined into the overall "smart" factor. Even the adage "study smarter not harder" applies, so I think I'm agreeing with you and @efle in this particular context despite by direct aversion for the term.

Very strictly speaking, the MCAT tests reasoning and analytical capabilities. So, somewhere around 25 would mean deficiency in the areas, while around 30s would mean proficiency. Reasoning and analytical skills aren't innate, as they are fostered and developed in someway (not necessarily short-term practice, but over the years usually). Defining smarts in terms of these capabilities is probably the best (i.e. least controversial) way.

And yeah I definitely agree, but we can be surprised. People who flunked out of high school and college can make a sudden U-turn in their lives and completely demolish the MCAT and get into the best medical schools. And that's where the whole issue begins. Were they idiots initially who suddenly became smart? Or were they always smart but didn't care/unmotivated etc.? Extending this would seem that there are really no "dumb people", and there are just people who are smart in their own ways.

@Lawper , @altblue I think there is some cross messaging going on, you are both saying the same basic things with just some minor differences.
Given the same effort,
Given the same access to materials
Assuming test takers capped their actual knowledge/ test taking ability
Any two test takers will get the same result.

The difference will show up in that the higher IQ individual should have a higher potential test score. Potential, not actual.

Also if a resource such as time is limited, the person with a higher IQ should exceed the person with the lower IQ simply because they are able to acquire and apply more knowledge in the same limited time. But that is when there is a limited resource.

Of course, heck I might be misreading you both. I am tired and my meds are well depleted since it is effectively 1AM.

Have a good night gents.

I don't like the IQ factor altogether since it's a terrible assessment of smarts. But yes, the two should get the same actual scores.

I think the similarity lies in the fact that I view preparation to be smart/efficient studying (not studying hard) as well as good test taking skills that seemingly require smarts (for deduction processes). So in that regard, the higher IQ individual would necessarily have better studying habits and test taking skills than the lower IQ individual (if IQ objectively measures smarts).

 

[Doudline]

Yes it has. It is amazing what long term brain damage will do to your IQ. And while it is hard work, it is possible to recover substantial portions of it, at least in my case; we have some amazing therapies these days.

Ha, that's interesting. But one could argue that an IQ test taken under momentary cognitive functions loss has no comparative purpose to a test taken under normal conditions. Your IQ was momentarily 85 only because of recent brain trauma (I assume).

 

[WingedOx]

Do you actually believe the average joe can prep their way to a 42?

Perhaps not, but there's always the "If I studied as hard as I did for the MCAT as I did for step 1, I'd be at a better medical school today" that you hear from med students. I was probably one of them.

 

[Lawpy]

Perhaps not, but there's always the "If I studied as hard as I did for the MCAT as I did for step 1, I'd be at a better medical school today" that you hear from med students. I was probably one of them.

It's kinda interesting actually. Someone who worked their butts off on Step 1 can feel confident in annihilating the MCAT. Someone who worked hard for MCAT feel confident to ace the SAT/ACT. And so on. Each test becomes harder than the last, so we feel confident in smashing the older tests.

 

[Mad Jack]

IQ also has a substantial portion based on short term memory and memory manipulation. I know in my own case MY tested IQ has been as high as 185 and as low as 85, I am in between that now the biggest difference has been related to recall and object manipulation.

Ultimately IQ is simply a measure of how easily you can learn, not how much you have learned. There are some other factors that come in, but I honestly believe ease of learning to be the real meaning of IQ.

Also, it is relatively safe to say there are not many average IQ range people (85-115) even trying to go into medicine. If we were not above average we would simply be delusional (and may still be I am sure I am somewhat but that isn;t going to stop me now)

No one has an IQ that oscillates between being borderline ******ed and literally one of the smartest people to ever exist.

 

[RKBrumbelow]

Ha, that's interesting. But one could argue that an IQ test taken under momentary cognitive functions loss has no comparative purpose to a test taken under normal conditions. Your IQ was momentarily 85 only because of recent brain trauma (I assume).

It was ongoing trauma, combination of a tumour and a congenital disorder. It took years for the full effect to manifest, it will take at least a couple of years to finish reversing the damage (to whatever degree I will be able to)

No one has an IQ that oscillates between being borderline ******ed and literally one of the smartest people to ever exist.

It did not oscillate, it went from very high to very low and is coming back, oscillation implies something that is repeating, not recovering. Also, I will point out that the issue is related to damage that was done to my amygdala and hippocampus. Specifically my recall and short term memory storage that was primarily affected. Also of note I lost the ability to comprehend written language to a large degree. This is not the time or place to get into all of that.

For the record all 3 tests were done using WAIS IV under the care of a Psychologist so I am not talking about some online test.

 

[WingedOx]

It's kinda interesting actually. Someone who worked their butts off on Step 1 can feel confident in annihilating the MCAT. Someone who worked hard for MCAT feel confident to ace the SAT/ACT. And so on. Each test becomes harder than the last, so we feel confident in smashing the older tests.

Eh... it peaks there though. My step 3 studying involved 2 weeks of Qbank and forgetting what day I had to take the test.

Only one of my Day 2 "virtual case" patients bled to death. I still passed.

 

[WingedOx]

Also, people "study" for the SAT and ACT? You guys came from a different world than I did.

/I'm also old enough that 1600 was a perfect SAT score.

 

[efle]

Perhaps not, but there's always the "If I studied as hard as I did for the MCAT as I did for step 1, I'd be at a better medical school today" that you hear from med students. I was probably one of them.

I think the similarity lies in the fact that I view preparation to be smart/efficient studying (not studying hard) as well as good test taking skills that seemingly require smarts (for deduction processes). So in that regard, the higher IQ individual would necessarily have better studying habits and test taking skills than the lower IQ individual (if IQ objectively measures smarts).

Efficient studying, and lots of it, is necessary but not sufficient for stellar MCATs.

There are a lot of people who did the old SN2ed schedule, all using his recommended books and really gave their all. Some got low 30s and other low 40s. It is ridiculous to say throwing enough effort at the MCAT will get the average joe to a 40+! A huge part of the MCAT is prep and practice, but someone with a 42 is guaranteed to be both studious and intelligent

Also, people "study" for the SAT and ACT? You guys came from a different world than I did.

/I'm also old enough that 1600 was a perfect SAT score.

Yeah people study a ton for it nowadays and often take it many times

 

[Mad Jack]

It was ongoing trauma, combination of a tumour and a congenital disorder. It took years for the full effect to manifest, it will take at least a couple of years to finish reversing the damage (to whatever degree I will be able to)


It did not oscillate, it went from very high to very low and is coming back, oscillation implies something that is repeating, not recovering. Also, I will point out that the issue is related to damage that was done to my amygdala and hippocampus. Specifically my recall and short term memory storage that was primarily affected. Also of note I lost the ability to comprehend written language to a large degree. This is not the time or place to get into all of that.

For the record all 3 tests were done using WAIS IV under the care of a Psychologist so I am not talking about some online test.

Oh, nevermind, that's believable. Brain damage can do some crazy things.

 

[WingedOx]

Yeah people study a ton for it nowadays and often take it many times

I think it's more a regional thing than a time thing. I had med school classmates that would tell me of the private tutoring they got for the thing. It kind of seemed stupid considering we all ended up in the same place in the end. I also came from a half our down the road from one of the "better" state schools in the nation, which at the time of when I applied tiered people's SAT/ACT as something like 1350/32+ as the highest possible score for their admission metric.

 

[Lawpy]

Efficient studying, and lots of it, is necessary but not sufficient for stellar MCATs.

But it really depends on what "stellar MCAT" means. Above 36? Above 40? Is a 38 by luck really different from a 42? What about people who are science whizzes and decent in VR?

There are a lot of people who did the old SN2ed schedule, all using his recommended books and really gave their all. Some got low 30s and other low 40s.

Mindset and luck play a role. But regardless, scoring even low 30s is significant and should be praised even if they couldn't come across high 30s/low 40s. But is someone who scored a low 40 neceesarily smarter than someone who scored a low 30? Both cases are balanced, double-digit scores.

It is ridiculous to say throwing enough effort at the MCAT will get the average joe to a 40+! A huge part of the MCAT is prep and practice, but someone with a 42 is guaranteed to be both studious and intelligent

Someone who does well in the sciences through plenty of practice and manage to do well in VR (around 10-12) can in fact score in the high 30s/low 40s range. Unless the science sections somehow became unreasonable to study and do well.

 

[efle]

But it really depends on what "stellar MCAT" means. Above 36? Above 40? Is a 38 by luck really different from a 42? What about people who are science whizzes and decent in VR?



Mindset and luck play a role. But regardless, scoring even low 30s is significant and should be praised even if they couldn't come across high 30s/low 40s. But is someone who scored a low 40 neceesarily smarter than someone who scored a low 30? Both cases are balanced, double-digit scores.



Someone who does well in the sciences through plenty of practice and manage to do well in VR (around 10-12) can in fact score in the high 30s/low 40s range. Unless the science sections somehow became unreasonable to study and do well.

Let's say top percent. I don't believe you can get 38+ without both studying and well above average intelligence.

No, a 40 is not necessarily smarter than a 30, because large amounts of efficient studying are necessary (but not sufficient). The 30 may have been a 40-capable person who did not put in enough efficient studying. All you can state for certain as that the 40 studied and is smart. You can't ever make reverse or comparative statements about a lower score showing not as smart. Unless you know both students put in the same effort by the same or similar method. Then the significantly higher score does indicate more brainpower.

I don't believe you can study yourself to a 12 V or a 15 in either science. For the sciences especially a ton of studying is necessary to open up the possibility to anyone, but again you simply cannot do that many problems that fast with perfect accuracy unless you are smart.

There are many people who desperately want to be doctors and throw their all into the MCAT, multiple times, only to come out with scores in the 20s. You just can't use willpower/mindset and effort alone to perform in the top percent

 

[altblue]

It's essentially many factors involved that probably (and loosely) combined into the overall "smart" factor. Even the adage "study smarter not harder" applies, so I think I'm agreeing with you and @efle in this particular context despite by direct aversion for the term.

Very strictly speaking, the MCAT tests reasoning and analytical capabilities. So, somewhere around 25 would mean deficiency in the areas, while around 30s would mean proficiency. Reasoning and analytical skills aren't innate, as they are fostered and developed in someway (not necessarily short-term practice, but over the years usually). Defining smarts in terms of these capabilities is probably the best (i.e. least controversial) way.

And yeah I definitely agree, but we can be surprised. People who flunked out of high school and college can make a sudden U-turn in their lives and completely demolish the MCAT and get into the best medical schools. And that's where the whole issue begins. Were they idiots initially who suddenly became smart? Or were they always smart but didn't care/unmotivated etc.? Extending this would seem that there are really no "dumb people", and there are just people who are smart in their own ways.



I don't like the IQ factor altogether since it's a terrible assessment of smarts. But yes, the two should get the same actual scores.

I think the similarity lies in the fact that I view preparation to be smart/efficient studying (not studying hard) as well as good test taking skills that seemingly require smarts (for deduction processes). So in that regard, the higher IQ individual would necessarily have better studying habits and test taking skills than the lower IQ individual (if IQ objectively measures smarts).

Good post but I'd just like to add something.

You can probably make yourself a bit smarter through time if you read a lot, do a lot of puzzles/symbolic manipulation, do things like philosophy to improve your thinking, but you'll probably still be in a similar position relative to the population.

 

[moisne]

Dude my IQ drops every year - I stopped taking those stupid IQ test bc each time I take them - it's just depressing to see a consistent 4-5 point drop. Does this mean I'm getting dumber?

 

[Gandyy]

I mean if we are talking about just beating the average student on the MCAT... thats pretty easy. Getting higher than a 25?

I actually have to adopt a view between Lawper and Efle. I believe that if you are a hard worker with a working brain who can achieve a high gpa at a 4 year state school, you can probably get a 32-33 on the MCAT.

35+ is kinda out of reach for a lot of people. Regardless a 32-33 score is a great score. I would be much more confident about my own application if I even had a 32.

 

[Lawpy]

Let's say top percent. I don't believe you can get 38+ without both studying and well above average intelligence.

No, a 40 is not necessarily smarter than a 30, because large amounts of efficient studying are necessary (but not sufficient). The 30 may have been a 40-capable person who did not put in enough efficient studying. All you can state for certain as that the 40 studied and is smart. You can't ever make reverse or comparative statements about a lower score showing not as smart. Unless you know both students put in the same effort by the same or similar method. Then the significantly higher score does indicate more brainpower.

I don't believe you can study yourself to a 12 V or a 15 in either science. For the sciences especially a ton of studying is necessary to open up the possibility to anyone, but again you simply cannot do that many problems that fast with perfect accuracy unless you are smart.

There are many people who desperately want to be doctors and throw their all into the MCAT, multiple times, only to come out with scores in the 20s. You just can't use willpower/mindset and effort alone to perform in the top percent

I realize we're stuck in an impasse so we'll probably agree to disagree anyways 😛

1. At the bare minimum, we're talking a 38 as in a 14/10/14, or maybe 13/11/14 or even 12/12/14. We're allowing more leeway for error in the sciences if we got lucky enough to do well in verbal. It's from this aspect, I view a 38 to be indistinguishable from a 36 and from a 40. Which means, optimal studying makes it possible to score within that range.

2. I don't think I'm disagreeing with that aspect, since someone with a 40 probably did put a lot of effort into it to do well, with more efficient studying etc. It's from that aspect that MD schools for the most part view 30 and 40 to be relatively identical (as in the average matriculant score is a 31). I can accept that a 40 individual is a better test taker who prepped better than a 30 individual (because the difference is significant). What I cannot accept is that a 40 is naturally smarter than a 30.

3. Isn't science sections really just using the concepts to attack any passage they throw at you? So, as long as you can score comfortably in a 13-15 range, and around 10-12 range in verbal, we're talking comfortably anywhere from a 36-42, and a 36 itself is the matriculant MCAT average for top tiers. Of course, expecting a 15 in sciences or 12 in verbal is too much, but it's not unreasonable to expect a 13 in sciences and 10 in verbal at optimal conditions.

4. But doesn't desperation automatically ensure a poor mindset? They're anxious while taking the exam and test anxiety would lead to less-than-optimal results. And you are overpraising the test-takers. People do score very frequently in 20s and even lower. This has nothing to do with them being capped. I entirely attribute this to poor studying habits (or at least, not focusing on the right methods), bad mindset, anxiety, and perhaps bad luck. There are a lot of people who got stuck in 20s in several attempts before suddenly scoring mid-30s in final attempt. Breaking 30s isn't insurmountable. Breaking 40s probably is, but that is inseparable from 36.

Good post but I'd just like to add something.

You can probably make yourself a bit smarter through time if you read a lot, do a lot of puzzles/symbolic manipulation, do things like philosophy to improve your thinking, but you'll probably still be in a similar position relative to the population.

I agree with those "smart-enhancing" activities are worthwhile. But I doubt that the relative position will remain unchanged. It is never constant (optimistically speaking, it leaves room for improvement, often significant), and it's the main reason why I reject the legitimacy of IQ tests and condemn all those "high IQ" societies.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

2. I don't think I'm disagreeing with that aspect, since someone with a 40 probably did put a lot of effort into it to do well, with more efficient studying etc. It's from that aspect that MD schools for the most part view 30 and 40 to be relatively identical (as in the average matriculant score is a 31). I can accept that a 40 individual is a better test taker who prepped better than a 30 individual (because the difference is significant). What I cannot accept is that a 40 is naturally smarter than a 30.

30 and 40 are identical? I would probably disagree with that. What would you say about the difference in people's initial practice test scores without studying? I have seen people score less than 22 on their first test, while others score more than 35. Studying seems mostly independent there.

 

[Lawpy]

30 and 40 are identical? I would probably disagree with that. What would you say about the difference in people's initial practice test scores without studying? I have seen people score less than 22 on their first test, while others score more than 35. Studying seems mostly independent there.

MD schools (mid to low tier) probably view the scores to be more similar to identical than different. And yet we have those scoring in the low 30s getting into the top tiers. There are some obvious differences (after all, the difference of 10 points with diminishing returns is still significant), but that is what it seems.

Honestly, the only value of diagnostic tests is to get a baseline of what to study and how much. Which means that someone who scored 35 with no studying can only focus on improving their test taking skills and do some refreshing content review (and ensuring they have a clear mindset). Although I did see people who scored 34-35 on the diagnostic only maginally improving or even remaining the same. In fact, someone who scored a 35 on diagnostic probably had an extensive background in their coursework (I'm talking very rigorous science prereqs and humanities courses). So studying indirectly led them to achieving a high score.

Studying is just one of several factors in doing well. I mentioned previously that other factors like test-taking skills, good mindset, and luck also play a role in achieving a high score.

 

[efle]

I realize we're stuck in an impasse so we'll probably agree to disagree anyways 😛

1. At the bare minimum, we're talking a 38 as in a 14/10/14, or maybe 13/11/14 or even 12/12/14. We're allowing more leeway for error in the sciences if we got lucky enough to do well in verbal. It's from this aspect, I view a 38 to be indistinguishable from a 36 and from a 40. Which means, optimal studying makes it possible to score within that range.

2. I don't think I'm disagreeing with that aspect, since someone with a 40 probably did put a lot of effort into it to do well, with more efficient studying etc. It's from that aspect that MD schools for the most part view 30 and 40 to be relatively identical (as in the average matriculant score is a 31). I can accept that a 40 individual is a better test taker who prepped better than a 30 individual (because the difference is significant). What I cannot accept is that a 40 is naturally smarter than a 30.

3. Isn't science sections really just using the concepts to attack any passage they throw at you? So, as long as you can score comfortably in a 13-15 range, and around 10-12 range in verbal, we're talking comfortably anywhere from a 36-42, and a 36 itself is the matriculant MCAT average for top tiers. Of course, expecting a 15 in sciences or 12 in verbal is too much, but it's not unreasonable to expect a 13 in sciences and 10 in verbal at optimal conditions.

4. But doesn't desperation automatically ensure a poor mindset? They're anxious while taking the exam and test anxiety would lead to less-than-optimal results. And you are overpraising the test-takers. People do score very frequently in 20s and even lower. This has nothing to do with them being capped. I entirely attribute this to poor studying habits (or at least, not focusing on the right methods), bad mindset, anxiety, and perhaps bad luck. There are a lot of people who got stuck in 20s in several attempts before suddenly scoring mid-30s in final attempt. Breaking 30s isn't insurmountable. Breaking 40s probably is, but that is inseparable from 36.



I agree with those "smart-enhancing" activities are worthwhile. But I doubt that the relative position will remain unchanged. It is never constant (optimistically speaking, it leaves room for improvement, often significant), and it's the main reason why I reject the legitimacy of IQ tests and condemn all those "high IQ" societies.

MD schools (mid to low tier) probably view the scores to be more similar to identical than different. And yet we have those scoring in the low 30s getting into the top tiers. There are some obvious differences (after all, the difference of 10 points with diminishing returns is still significant), but that is what it seems.

Honestly, the only value of diagnostic tests is to get a baseline of what to study and how much. Which means that someone who scored 35 with no studying can only focus on improving their test taking skills and do some refreshing content review (and ensuring they have a clear mindset). Although I did see people who scored 34-35 on the diagnostic only maginally improving or even remaining the same. In fact, someone who scored a 35 on diagnostic probably had an extensive background in their coursework (I'm talking very rigorous science prereqs and humanities courses). So studying indirectly led them to achieving a high score.

Studying is just one of several factors in doing well. I mentioned previously that other factors like test-taking skills, good mindset, and luck also play a role in achieving a high score.

Again you've got to stop talking about Verbal as if 10 vs 12 vs 13-15 is based on chance or time spend reading. Like I said there are people who do zero reading, score 13-15 on every practice test and the real thing, and can justify all of their answers; they aren't getting lucky in outperforming 10 every time. It is a test of high-speed comprehension and reasoning (the very name of the section), is highly resistant to study-based improvement and is exactly the type of test which correlates to IQ (see things I mentioned before like SAT CR+M and how well those correlate).

If two people both study to their max (as many do) and one scores 10 points higher, they are more likely smarter, not luckier.

Science is recognizing what they want, figuring out how to find it and doing so accurately at very high speed. If everyone took the test with unlimited time you are right, enough understanding would lead to most people making 13+. But, much like SAT M it becomes a test of aptitude on top of knowledge because of the time constraints. It is possible for someone to understand and be able to explain every single concept covered in PS, yet be totally incapable of a 15, because they don't have the necessary brainpower.

The differences between a top percentile and a median scorer cannot always be attributed to bad studying or test anxiety. There are people who peak at 30, limited by their problem solving speed.

 

[altblue]

I realize we're stuck in an impasse so we'll probably agree to disagree anyways 😛

1. At the bare minimum, we're talking a 38 as in a 14/10/14, or maybe 13/11/14 or even 12/12/14. We're allowing more leeway for error in the sciences if we got lucky enough to do well in verbal. It's from this aspect, I view a 38 to be indistinguishable from a 36 and from a 40. Which means, optimal studying makes it possible to score within that range.

2. I don't think I'm disagreeing with that aspect, since someone with a 40 probably did put a lot of effort into it to do well, with more efficient studying etc. It's from that aspect that MD schools for the most part view 30 and 40 to be relatively identical (as in the average matriculant score is a 31). I can accept that a 40 individual is a better test taker who prepped better than a 30 individual (because the difference is significant). What I cannot accept is that a 40 is naturally smarter than a 30.

3. Isn't science sections really just using the concepts to attack any passage they throw at you? So, as long as you can score comfortably in a 13-15 range, and around 10-12 range in verbal, we're talking comfortably anywhere from a 36-42, and a 36 itself is the matriculant MCAT average for top tiers. Of course, expecting a 15 in sciences or 12 in verbal is too much, but it's not unreasonable to expect a 13 in sciences and 10 in verbal at optimal conditions.

4. But doesn't desperation automatically ensure a poor mindset? They're anxious while taking the exam and test anxiety would lead to less-than-optimal results. And you are overpraising the test-takers. People do score very frequently in 20s and even lower. This has nothing to do with them being capped. I entirely attribute this to poor studying habits (or at least, not focusing on the right methods), bad mindset, anxiety, and perhaps bad luck. There are a lot of people who got stuck in 20s in several attempts before suddenly scoring mid-30s in final attempt. Breaking 30s isn't insurmountable. Breaking 40s probably is, but that is inseparable from 36.



I agree with those "smart-enhancing" activities are worthwhile. But I doubt that the relative position will remain unchanged. It is never constant (optimistically speaking, it leaves room for improvement, often significant), and it's the main reason why I reject the legitimacy of IQ tests and condemn all those "high IQ" societies.

We can agree to disagree, then. I haven't done my research, so yeah. 🙂

Lol, high IQ societies are so pretentious. If you want to be around smart people, work towards a job where you'll be surrounded by them. But that's just me.

 

[Lawpy]

Again you've got to stop talking about Verbal as if 10 vs 12 vs 13-15 is based on chance or time spend reading. Like I said there are people who do zero reading, score 13-15 on every practice test and the real thing, and can justify all of their answers; they aren't getting lucky in outperforming 10 every time. It is a test of high-speed comprehension and reasoning (the very name of the section), is highly resistant to study-based improvement and is exactly the type of test which correlates to IQ (see things I mentioned before like SAT CR+M and how well those correlate).

If two people both study to their max (as many do) and one scores 10 points higher, they are more likely smarter, not luckier.

Science is recognizing what they want, figuring out how to find it and doing so accurately at very high speed. If everyone took the test with unlimited time you are right, enough understanding would lead to most people making 13+. But, much like SAT M it becomes a test of aptitude on top of knowledge because of the time constraints. It is possible for someone to understand and be able to explain every single concept covered in PS, yet be totally incapable of a 15, because they don't have the necessary brainpower.

The differences between a top percentile and a median scorer cannot always be attributed to bad studying or test anxiety. There are people who peak at 30, limited by their problem solving speed.

Verbal is a bad section of the test given various reports from people who scored high on the section (GTLO/ElCapone/Narmerguy come to mind). The central objective is to understand what the passages are talking about and using that to attack ambiguous and subjective questions. This is why I strictly mention that as long as people are capable in scoring 10-11 range (9 is fine as well), it is fine. There is nothing superior about getting a 13-15, even consistently. Yes, people can score high in practice and land up flat on their face by scoring a 10 on the real deal. Verbal has nothing to do with "reasoning quickly under pressure", more so than finding out which answer is better than the next even though both sound tempting. The section is prone to incredible fluctuations and it becomes unreliable after passing a 10.

What? Scoring 10 points higher with diminishing returns does have some luck involved (a 40 really isn't different from a 36), but someone who scored a 40 probably also has better test taking skills and studying habits.

And that's where practice comes into play to do well in the science sections, which as you admitted, can be improved unlike the bad verbal. Consistent timed practice can safely ensure somewhere in the 12-15 range.

But do people really peak at 20s? Remember, a balanced 30 is a solid score that confidently beat out the average and is susceptible to diminishing returns. But peaking at 20s means the existing strategy is bad and it's time to find something better.

 

[efle]

Are you arguing that Verbal Reasoning is not a time constrained test of reasoning? Such tests are annoying and right vs wrong can often feel subjective but yet performance is significantly consistent (esp regarding positive outliers). By definition a consistent 13-15 is superior performance to consistent 9-10. And once more let me say that it is well established that language reasoning/crit reading comprehension tests correlate to IQ.

There are many people who do a ton of timed practice and still struggle to break 10 let alone 12-15. There are indeed people who cap out in the 20s. I don't know how this argument will ever go anywhere though if you ignore all the data showing that retest confidence bands are narrow (+/-2) and that the majority of test takers struggle to hit 30s. If it was really possible for average minds to study their way to a >40 like you claimed, there would be a **** ton more premeds than 0.1% doing it.

 

[Gandyy]

Are you arguing that Verbal Reasoning is not a time constrained test of reasoning? Such tests are annoying and right vs wrong can often feel subjective but yet performance is significantly consistent (esp regarding positive outliers). By definition a consistent 13-15 is superior performance to consistent 9-10. And once more let me say that it is well established that language reasoning/crit reading comprehension tests correlate to IQ.

There are many people who do a ton of timed practice and still struggle to break 10 let alone 12-15. There are indeed people who cap out in the 20s. I don't know how this argument will ever go anywhere though if you ignore all the data showing that retest confidence bands are narrow (+/-2) and that the majority of test takers struggle to hit 30s. If it was really possible for average minds to study their way to a >40 like you claimed, there would be a **** ton more premeds than 0.1% doing it.

True. I still believe that the majority of people who do well at a 4 year state school (>3.6) can get a 31 or a 32 if they use the SN2 schedule properly with the Berkeley Review books. But getting a 34+ I believe requires you to either have something unique or just be a really good test taker.

 

[altblue]

True. I still believe that the majority of people who do well at a 4 year state school (>3.6) can get a 31 or a 32 if they use the SN2 schedule properly with the Berkeley Review books. But getting a 34+ I believe requires you to either have something unique or just be a really good test taker.

If it's anythjng like my old community college, The problem is that people in the mid-to-low 3.0s at state schools are still giving the MCAT the shot in the hopes of killing it.. Unlike people with the same gpa at a top school, They oftentimes can't hack it either way.

Just thought I'd add that.

Sent from my phone

 

[Gandyy]

If it's anythjng like my old community college, The problem is that people in the mid-to-low 3.0s at state schools are still giving the MCAT the shot in the hopes of killing it.. Unlike people with the same gpa at a top school, They oftentimes can't hack it either way.

Just thought I'd add that.

Sent from my phone

Well I was talking about people with higher than low to mid gpas. I dont expect someone with a 3.3 to get a 32 if its non-ivy league state school. Admittedly this happens sometimes.

Its a little weird though when you see someone with a 3.9 from a state school with a 25..... its like what?

 

[efle]

More than a third of 3.8+ GPAs fail to break 30. another big chunk of evidence that good studying does not --> 42...

Well I was talking about people with higher than low to mid gpas. I dont expect someone with a 3.3 to get a 32 if its non-ivy league state school. Admittedly this happens sometimes.

Its a little weird though when you see someone with a 3.9 from a state school with a 25..... its like what?

 

[Gandyy]

More than a third of 3.8+ GPAs fail to break 30. another big chunk of evidence that good studying does not --> 42...

Where are you getting this data from?