IQ and MCAT

[efle]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Table 24

Where are you getting this data from?

 

[Conflagration]

The veracity of online tests is questionable, but I tend to get 145-148 as mine. The one in-person test I had, which I'm not even sure was technically an IQ test, had me answering arithmetic and verbal questions, and I got to the tenth grade levels as a fifth grader. That would put me right at that 1.45 modifier from performance age to actual age, which someone said was the basis of an IQ score.

My fiancee, who is one of the most intelligent people I know, has a verified score of 84. She got a near perfect score on the SAT, without studying either. She in particular may have a lower documented IQ because of her ADHD and her autism diagnoses despite being intelligent, which makes her certainly an outlier when we talk about these things. (She also has some serious spatial perception and reasoning issues, which tarnishes her score because a solid portion of it is based on spatial reasoning.)

I have a variant of autism also, but a less profound one than her. She also told me that she suspected that I've been so frustrated with my college performance because I may have ADD, since I exhibit restlessness and agitation constantly and can't keep attention on anything for a long period of time. I'm going to talk to a psychiatrist about that and see what they think.

But, no, I don't think test scores are indicative of IQ. People like my fiancee, who have lower IQ scores, perform excellently on metrics like the SAT and I'm sure she'd kick the GRE's ass if she needed to. They measure their metrics in such different ways, I'm sure a disparity between the two would be at least predicted, if not expected. And studying and effort exerted can compensate for points on the MCAT, which can not necessarily be said for an IQ, IMO.

 

[titanmoon]

I've read that the average IQ of a doctor is 125, and the average IQ of the US population as a whole is 100.

Roughly 50% of med school applicants are accepted each year, if we assume that close to 100% of MCAT takers eventually apply to med school, and only the top 50% are accepted, then perhaps the average score of a med school matriculant is around the 75th percentile of MCAT scores. What score would that be?

 

[efle]

The veracity of online tests is questionable, but I tend to get 145-148 as mine. The one in-person test I had, which I'm not even sure was technically an IQ test, had me answering arithmetic and verbal questions, and I got to the tenth grade levels as a fifth grader. That would put me right at that 1.45 modifier from performance age to actual age, which someone said was the basis of an IQ score.

My fiancee, who is one of the most intelligent people I know, has a verified score of 84. She got a near perfect score on the SAT, without studying either. She in particular may have a lower documented IQ because of her ADHD and her autism diagnoses despite being intelligent, which makes her certainly an outlier when we talk about these things. (She also has some serious spatial perception and reasoning issues, which tarnishes her score because a solid portion of it is based on spatial reasoning.)

I have a variant of autism also, but a less profound one than her. She also told me that she suspected that I've been so frustrated with my college performance because I may have ADD, since I exhibit restlessness and agitation constantly and can't keep attention on anything for a long period of time. I'm going to talk to a psychiatrist about that and see what they think.

But, no, I don't think test scores are indicative of IQ. People like my fiancee, who have lower IQ scores, perform excellently on metrics like the SAT and I'm sure she'd kick the GRE's ass if she needed to. They measure their metrics in such different ways, I'm sure a disparity between the two would be at least predicted, if not expected. And studying and effort exerted can compensate for points on the MCAT, which can not necessarily be said for an IQ, IMO.

Ah, a n=2 and the n's have multiple disabilities. Very convincing

I've read that the average IQ of a doctor is 125, and the average IQ of the US population as a whole is 100.

Roughly 50% of med school applicants are accepted each year, if we assume that close to 100% of MCAT takers eventually apply to med school, and only the top 50% are accepted, then perhaps the average score of a med school matriculant is around the 75th percentile of MCAT scores. What score would that be?

Median matriculant MCAT last year was 83rd percentile (31)

 

[TUVIX]

I was reading a readers digest article and it says that research has shown many ways in which average IQ individuals can obtain a gifted IQ, no joke. It sort of blew my mind, but you can actually significantly increase your IQ. This got me to thinking. I wonder how much of the MCAT is pure IQ, how much of it is " hard work with the prereqs" and how much of it is critical thinking skills. I suppose all three of these are independent. I don't see myself as being born genius...although smarts does run in my family. The brother is a surgeon and the dad a lawyer.

I would love to know if you think which one of these three aspects really truly trumps on the MCAT. Obviously it is great to have all three. If you know your IQ, dont be shy...please state your IQ. I'd like to see if there's any correlation here. It will blow my mind to see a 41S with a lower IQ and a 25 with a higher IQ. Please do share 😀 P.S, I don't know my IQ, lol. I guess that it is normal . I am just now becoming an avid reader so maybe it will increase.

The MCAT requires too much factual knowledge to perfectly align with an IQ test which is attempting to test raw intelligence. It's not really possible to test IQ without some amount assumption of prior knowledge. For example a lot of IQ tests have questions like "Fill in the next number in the following series: 2,3,5,7,11,13" Now, if you had never taken a math class before then you may not recognize this as a series of prime numbers and it may take even a really smart person to figure out that 17 is the next number. There are many questions on the MCAT that come down to just knowing a basic fact, like that a negative charge will attract a positive charge. The tricky part of the MCAT usually is figuring out exactly what basic fact you are being asked to recall, and that's where critical thinking comes into play.

Personally I think that if you were to have every MCAT test taker also take an IQ test you would probably see a very mild correlation up to a certain point. Maybe people who get really high scores like 38 and above would not follow that trend…I don't know. I have always looked at IQ more as processing power and less as intelligence, or even critical thinking skills. After all there is more to intelligence than book smarts and critical thinking. People with a very high IQ may have an advantage on the exam because they can process the information faster which effectively allows them to think about it more. I don't know.

 

[TUVIX]

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

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus#Confusion_with_Rod_of_Asclepius

 

[Gandyy]

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus#Confusion_with_Rod_of_Asclepius

Oh i'm fully aware. This particular picture looks cool tho.

 

[Gandyy]

The veracity of online tests is questionable, but I tend to get 145-148 as mine. The one in-person test I had, which I'm not even sure was technically an IQ test, had me answering arithmetic and verbal questions, and I got to the tenth grade levels as a fifth grader. That would put me right at that 1.45 modifier from performance age to actual age, which someone said was the basis of an IQ score.

My fiancee, who is one of the most intelligent people I know, has a verified score of 84. She got a near perfect score on the SAT, without studying either. She in particular may have a lower documented IQ because of her ADHD and her autism diagnoses despite being intelligent, which makes her certainly an outlier when we talk about these things. (She also has some serious spatial perception and reasoning issues, which tarnishes her score because a solid portion of it is based on spatial reasoning.)

I have a variant of autism also, but a less profound one than her. She also told me that she suspected that I've been so frustrated with my college performance because I may have ADD, since I exhibit restlessness and agitation constantly and can't keep attention on anything for a long period of time. I'm going to talk to a psychiatrist about that and see what they think.

But, no, I don't think test scores are indicative of IQ. People like my fiancee, who have lower IQ scores, perform excellently on metrics like the SAT and I'm sure she'd kick the GRE's ass if she needed to. They measure their metrics in such different ways, I'm sure a disparity between the two would be at least predicted, if not expected. And studying and effort exerted can compensate for points on the MCAT, which can not necessarily be said for an IQ, IMO.

I'm assuming that most people in this thread would be using the WAIS Psychology IQ metric, not an online IQ test. Thats what I was alluding to when I took mine.

 

[Conflagration]

Ah, a n=2 and the n's have multiple disabilities. Very convincing

I love large sample sizes just as much as anyone, don't get me wrong.

But based on that experience (which you can take with as much or as little salt as you'd like), and considering other outside factors- like disabilities, test anxiety, material covered, the differences of the tests, I'm not sure if there's a compelling argument to be had in making a blanket statement in "Oh, if your IQ is higher, then you'll test better on the MCAT too!"

And, even if there could be such a point to be made, I'm not sure how legitimate that point would be. Like, super, a metric I can't change has a loosely predictive quality of a test that I need to take.

That's ignoring other confounding variables, like the things that they may or may not have been taught because of the quality of their education, the availability of other resources (I believe there was a study showing that higher IQs tended to belong to persons of at least middle-tier SES), and their work ethic. Also, familiarity with the MCAT itself, with the material of the MCAT being almost completely unrelated to an IQ test, I'm not convinced if a trend would mean very much.

 

[TUVIX]

I love large sample sizes just as much as anyone, don't get me wrong.

But based on that experience (which you can take with as much or as little salt as you'd like), and considering other outside factors- like disabilities, test anxiety, material covered, the differences of the tests, I'm not sure if there's a compelling argument to be had in making a blanket statement in "Oh, if your IQ is higher, then you'll test better on the MCAT too!"

And, even if there could be such a point to be made, I'm not sure how legitimate that point would be. Like, super, a metric I can't change has a loosely predictive quality of a test that I need to take.

That's ignoring other confounding variables, like the things that they may or may not have been taught because of the quality of their education, the availability of other resources (I believe there was a study showing that higher IQs tended to belong to persons of at least middle-tier SES), and their work ethic. Also, familiarity with the MCAT itself, with the material of the MCAT being almost completely unrelated to an IQ test, I'm not convinced if a trend would mean very much.

There are too many variables. For example, when I took the MCAT I had been out of school for 3 years. I had taken gen chem 7 years ago at that point. I had to reteach it all to myself….even basic stuff like what the atomic number tells you about the number of protons and neutrons etc… I am sure that if I had done really well in all of my prereqs in a post bacc program and then studied for 3 months with it all fresh in my head and the ability to focus mostly on test taking strategy then I would have scored 3 or 4 points higher.

 

[efle]

I love large sample sizes just as much as anyone, don't get me wrong.

But based on that experience (which you can take with as much or as little salt as you'd like), and considering other outside factors- like disabilities, test anxiety, material covered, the differences of the tests, I'm not sure if there's a compelling argument to be had in making a blanket statement in "Oh, if your IQ is higher, then you'll test better on the MCAT too!"

And, even if there could be such a point to be made, I'm not sure how legitimate that point would be. Like, super, a metric I can't change has a loosely predictive quality of a test that I need to take.

That's ignoring other confounding variables, like the things that they may or may not have been taught because of the quality of their education, the availability of other resources (I believe there was a study showing that higher IQs tended to belong to persons of at least middle-tier SES), and their work ethic. Also, familiarity with the MCAT itself, with the material of the MCAT being almost completely unrelated to an IQ test, I'm not convinced if a trend would mean very much.

Have you taken the MCAT? I'm pretty incredulous that people experienced with it would contest the statement "high intelligence aids you on the MCAT"

There are too many variables. For example, when I took the MCAT I had been out of school for 3 years. I had taken gen chem 7 years ago at that point. I had to reteach it all to myself….even basic stuff like what the atomic number tells you about the number of protons and neutrons etc… I am sure that if I had done really well in all of my prereqs in a post bacc program and then studied for 3 months with it all fresh in my head and the ability to focus mostly on test taking strategy then I would have scored 3 or 4 points higher.

Idk man. Having taken gen chem 2-3 years prior probably doesn't make it that much fresher than 7 years, and you can teach yourself an entire subject from scratch with no college or even AP experience in it and still hit top percentile

 

[Conflagration]

Have you taken the MCAT? I'm pretty incredulous that people experienced with it would contest the statement "high intelligence aids you on the MCAT"

I have not- but a test is a test. Like any test, you have to know your material, and you have to know the tricks. Other than being below a certain line of intelligence, I sincerely doubt that there would be a trend significant enough to report like gospel truth.

There very well could be a trend- but what would that trend mean? Chalking it up to "well the higher number IQ automatically means you're smarter" is silly. There's countless modes of intelligence, and an IQ test can only measure so many.

 

[efle]

I have not- but a test is a test. Like any test, you have to know your material, and you have to know the tricks. Other than being below a certain line of intelligence, I sincerely doubt that there would be a trend significant enough to report like gospel truth.

There very well could be a trend- but what would that trend mean? Chalking it up to "well the higher number IQ automatically means you're smarter" is silly. There's countless modes of intelligence, and an IQ test can only measure so many.

You might be surprised by the correlation shown by something like SAT CR+M then?

We get that you have a chip on your shoulder regarding IQ tests. I think throughout this thread IQ has just been shorthand for smarts, not a literal "this exact definition of intelligence is all I'm talking about" deal

 

[Jloyay]

Honestly the MCAT was the only test I've ever done where I could say reliance on memory is minimal. It's more about reading the passages and applying the info given to the problems so I would say it is highly correlated with IQ. More university exams should be like the MCAT and not just pure memorization.

 

[justadream]

There surely is some positive correlation between IQ and MCAT score.

If you really believe that there is no correlation, that means that if your life depended on someone scoring high on the MCAT, you would be completely indifferent as to whether you choose to have someone with an IQ of 200 vs. someone with an IQ of 60.

All the factors many of you bring up (e.g., preparation, upbringing, disabilities, ESL, etc.) certainly matter in terms of the actual score . But think of it this way:

IQ generally affects your potential/ceiling. Whether you reach that ceiling depends on the factors like preparation, upbringing, ESL, etc. This is especially true for the verbal section. If you are a native English speaker and prepare for the MCAT and plateau at 10-11, then it's unlikely you will be able to average 14-15, even if you prepared for the next 3 years. Why? Because you are being limited by your critical thinking ability and hitting your ceiling.

Now I'm not saying that someone with an IQ of 100 couldn't outscore someone with an IQ of 200. But if you control for other factors (like level of preparation), it's more likely that the person with an IQ of 200 will end up doing better.

 

[Conflagration]

You might be surprised by the correlation shown by something like SAT CR+M then?

We get that you have a chip on your shoulder regarding IQ tests. I think throughout this thread IQ has just been shorthand for smarts, not a literal "this exact definition of intelligence is all I'm talking about" deal

Hardly a chip on the shoulder- but it's one metric in something as vast and variable as intelligence, and I feel as though we could try other metrics that relate more to the subject at hand.

SAT CR+M measures a specific skill set that is pertinent to incoming college students- math and reading, which is why it is used to predict student performance incoming into undergrad because students are required to at least attain a certain mastery of reading and math. I can understand why that's used- it directly tests the very things students need to succeed in college. I could see a well-established trend exist between SAT CR+M and GRE's V+Q- they're different difficulties on the same subjects.

IQ tests tend to be based on spatial reasoning and patterns, which is why I think that trying to make a trend with them would be kind of silly- because what we're testing now have very little to do with whether or not we can correctly answer if all Razzles are Zingwahs because we know all Razzles are Blops, and all Blops are Zingwahs. Sure, some critical reasoning is at play, but there's a lot of other variables that in my opinion would make that trend incredibly weak. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Conflagration]

There surely is some positive correlation between IQ and MCAT score.

If you really believe that there is no correlation, that means that if your life depended on someone scoring high on the MCAT, you would be completely indifferent as to whether you choose to have someone with an IQ of 200 vs. someone with an IQ of 60.

All the factors many of you bring up (e.g., preparation, upbringing, disabilities, ESL, etc.) certainly matter in terms of the actual score . But think of it this way:

IQ generally affects your potential/ceiling. Whether you reach that ceiling depends on the factors like preparation, upbringing, ESL, etc. This is especially true for the verbal section. If you are a native English speaker and prepare for the MCAT and plateau at 10-11, then it's unlikely you will be able to average 14-15, even if you prepared for the next 3 years. Why? Because you are being limited by your critical thinking ability and hitting your ceiling.

Now I'm not saying that someone with an IQ of 100 couldn't outscore someone with an IQ of 200. But if you control for other factors (like level of preparation), it's more likely that the person with an IQ of 200 will end up doing better.

Thank you for putting this in words I couldn't find if my life depended on it. I think that there might very well be a trend, but the other external factors really weaken that trend. Intelligence will factor into how well you do on a test, but I don't think that we can conclusively make a trend because there's too many other things that can change. Does that make sense?

 

[efle]

Hardly a chip on the shoulder- but it's one metric in something as vast and variable as intelligence, and I feel as though we could try other metrics that relate more to the subject at hand.

SAT CR+M measures a specific skill set that is pertinent to incoming college students- math and reading, which is why it is used to predict student performance incoming into undergrad because students are required to at least attain a certain mastery of reading and math. I can understand why that's used- it directly tests the very things students need to succeed in college. I could see a well-established trend exist between SAT CR+M and GRE's V+Q- they're different difficulties on the same subjects.

IQ tests tend to be based on spatial reasoning and patterns, which is why I think that trying to make a trend with them would be kind of silly- because what we're testing now have very little to do with whether or not we can correctly answer if all Razzles are Zingwahs because we know all Razzles are Blops, and all Blops are Zingwahs. Sure, some critical reasoning is at play, but there's a lot of other variables that in my opinion would make that trend incredibly weak. That's just my opinion, though.

The sort of pattern recognition and symbolic manipulation you're talking about are just more explicit/isolated scenarios of the same things tested on the MCAT even in Verbal

I don't think that we can conclusively make a trend because there's too many other things that can change. Does that make sense?

This isn't something you have to say. Discussions about population trends always assume you've controlled for the other things as best as you can

My god I can't believe this is even being argued about. If you people's lives depended on a correct yes or no answer to "do smarter people tend to do better on the MCAT" would you seriously say no?

And just for you @Conflagration, we're going to be assuming the people I'm asking aren't suicidal, too young to comprehend death, etc 😉

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

Have you taken the MCAT? I'm pretty incredulous that people experienced with it would contest the statement "high intelligence aids you on the MCAT

I took the MCAT, though it was the new one, and I did well on it. I have a high IQ.

I think my natural critical reasoning skills helped me a great deal. As I mentioned in my MCAT approach, I never did a single CARS passage outside of the 4 practice tests I took, and I managed to score in the 97th percentile on that section. My best friend spent months preparing, and he is a much better worker than I am, but he got an 8 verbal. I do believe my "high intelligence" aided me. I always describe myself as bright, but not very smart. I'm that girl in lecture who always asks 18 million questions that most kids probably wouldn't think to ask, but doesn't spend nearly enough time studying, and my grades are not wonderful as a result.

It actually almost makes me feel guilty, getting 100th percentile. I spent maybe 250-300 hours prepping for the MCAT, and my base content knowledge was not very strong at all, so that's probably out as a factor as well. You might think I'm underestimating my knowledge of the content. I'm not. You know how much time I spent on my Biochemistry class? 18 hours. I ditched almost everyday and studied 6 hours the night before each of the two midterms and the final, doing the bare minimum to get an A.

 

[efle]

I took the MCAT, though it was the new one, and I did well on it. I have a high IQ.

I think my natural critical reasoning skills helped me a great deal. As I mentioned in my MCAT approach, I never did a single CARS passage outside of the 4 practice tests I took, and I managed to score in the 97th percentile on that section. My best friend spent months preparing, and he is a much better worker than I am, but he got an 8 verbal. I do believe my "high intelligence" aided me. I always describe myself as bright, but not very smart. I'm that girl in lecture who always asks 18 million questions that most kids probably wouldn't think to ask, but doesn't spend nearly enough time studying, and my grades are not wonderful as a result.

It actually almost makes me feel guilty, getting 100th percentile. I spent maybe 250-300 hours prepping for the MCAT, and my base content knowledge was not very strong at all, so that's probably out as a factor as well. You might think I'm underestimating my knowledge of the content. I'm not. You know how much time I spent on my Biochemistry class? 18 hours. I ditched almost everyday and studied 6 hours the night before each of the two midterms and the final, doing the bare minimum to get an A.

Oh man the humblebrag is strong with this one...

More seriously, I've seen and experienced the same. One friend will get nothing but top 1% V scores on every practice test, while another (who is a phil major) struggles to break 10. It's not all about who is well-read, or studies harder. The test rewards intelligence too

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

Oh man the humblebrag is strong with this one...

More seriously, I've seen and experienced the same. One friend will get nothing but top 1% V scores on every practice test, while another (who is a phil major) struggles to break 10. It's not all about who is well-read, or studies harder. The test rewards intelligence too

Lol I've never actually brought up my IQ before with anyone besides my parents (I know you won't believe me, but it's true)! Only because the first post said to go no holds barred did I even mention it. I'm actually not even sure exactly what it is- I only know the percentile.

I know it does sound like a humblebrag, but I try to provide a very honest assessment of my skills. I think especially with this new test, a lot of people have been struggling to find a new rigorous study plan they can follow, and since I was successful, mine happens to be one of the ones they look at. This makes me feel nervous and guilty because I know that my skill set is very different from most peoples'. Hell, we're all unique, and we all have different skills. I don't want people copying exactly what I do because it makes me feel guilty when it doesn't work as well for them. That's why I'm upfront in saying that I am a VERY good standardized test taker.

In all honestly, I don't think everyone has the potential to get a 525, or even a 515. That may make me sound elitist, arrogant, stuck up, cruel, b****y, and narrow-minded, but I can't help how I feel!

I think I am equally critical of myself, however. I am absolutely terrible at making myself work at things I *don't* care for. It's why I did so terribly in Calc 2, OChem 1&2, and Physics 2. Honestly, this hamartia (lol I sound REALLY arrogant now) may be the reason I might never be a doctor.

Hopefully you're not thinking of me as a terrible person now! If you are, oh well

Edit: I just noticed the hyperlink. Rude. Ha! Now I definitely don't care at all what you think about me!

 

[Gandyy]

Lol I've never actually brought up my IQ before with anyone besides my parents (I know you won't believe me, but it's true)! Only because the first post said to go no holds barred did I even mention it. I'm actually not even sure exactly what it is- I only know the percentile.

I know it does sound like a humblebrag, but I try to provide a very honest assessment of my skills. I think especially with this new test, a lot of people have been struggling to find a new rigorous study plan they can follow, and since I was successful, mine happens to be one of the ones they look at. This makes me feel nervous and guilty because I know that my skill set is very different from most peoples'. Hell, we're all unique, and we all have different skills. I don't want people copying exactly what I do because it makes me feel guilty when it doesn't work as well for them. That's why I'm upfront in saying that I am a VERY good standardized test taker.

In all honestly, I don't think everyone has the potential to get a 525, or even a 515. That may make me sound elitist, arrogant, stuck up, cruel, b****y, and narrow-minded, but I can't help how I feel!

I think I am equally critical of myself, however. I am absolutely terrible at making myself work at things I *don't* care for. It's why I did so terribly in Calc 2, OChem 1&2, and Physics 2. Honestly, this hamartia (lol I sound REALLY arrogant now) may be the reason I might never be a doctor.

Hopefully you're not thinking of me as a terrible person now! If you are, oh well

Edit: I just noticed the hyperlink. Rude. Ha! Now I definitely don't care at all what you think about me!

I was going to comment but I don't know what a 515 is equal to

 

[Lil Mick]

It seems like the MCAT is a mix of intelligence, knowledge of a subject, and speed. This is just an N of 1, but I started college at 12, hold a national award in creative writing, and still couldn't finish the VR section of the MCAT. I think some of the standardized test taking has to do with being a quick thinker vs. a deep thinker...

That being said, if anyone needs a swift kick in the IQ pants, try taking graduate math courses. Some of those pure mathematics guys operate on a separate plane of existence...

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

I was going to comment but I don't know what a 515 is equal to

I think it's like low to mid 30s.

I was on the swim team in high school. I was a terrible swimmer, but I was tasked with tutoring a lot of the actual good swimmers who were in danger of getting kicked off the team due to their low grades.

Tell me that the girl who, at the age of 17 in a wealthy (think old money) area (so SES is not a factor), thought photosynthesis was "taking pictures of plants" could break a 30 on the MCAT.

 

[efle]

Lol I've never actually brought up my IQ before with anyone besides my parents (I know you won't believe me, but it's true)! Only because the first post said to go no holds barred did I even mention it. I'm actually not even sure exactly what it is- I only know the percentile.

I know it does sound like a humblebrag, but I try to provide a very honest assessment of my skills. I think especially with this new test, a lot of people have been struggling to find a new rigorous study plan they can follow, and since I was successful, mine happens to be one of the ones they look at. This makes me feel nervous and guilty because I know that my skill set is very different from most peoples'. Hell, we're all unique, and we all have different skills. I don't want people copying exactly what I do because it makes me feel guilty when it doesn't work as well for them. That's why I'm upfront in saying that I am a VERY good standardized test taker.

In all honestly, I don't think everyone has the potential to get a 525, or even a 515. That may make me sound elitist, arrogant, stuck up, cruel, b****y, and narrow-minded, but I can't help how I feel!

I think I am equally critical of myself, however. I am absolutely terrible at making myself work at things I *don't* care for. It's why I did so terribly in Calc 2, OChem 1&2, and Physics 2. Honestly, this hamartia (lol I sound REALLY arrogant now) may be the reason I might never be a doctor.

Hopefully you're not thinking of me as a terrible person now! If you are, oh well

Edit: I just noticed the hyperlink. Rude. Ha! Now I definitely don't care at all what you think about me!

I think it's like low to mid 30s.

I was on the swim team in high school. I was a terrible swimmer, but I was tasked with tutoring a lot of the actual good swimmers who were in danger of getting kicked off the team due to their low grades.

Tell me that the girl who, at the age of 17 in a wealthy (think old money) area (so SES is not a factor), thought photosynthesis was "taking pictures of plants" could break a 30 on the MCAT.

You're like a giant satire of the premed ego

I was going to comment but I don't know what a 515 is equal to

It's a 33-34. For future reference: http://i.imgur.com/cL34zC6.png

more to be found here

 

[mehc012]

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.

That's what I say everytime this topic comes up! I was actually the first year where 1600 stopped being a good score. Maybe the shift was around then, because my highschool classmates were cutthroat and crazy intense about everything, and yet SAT studying/prep courses were not really a thing. Retakes were, though...I had a classmate basically force me to tell her my score and then she almost decided to retake her 2310 because I scored higher on math than she did. 🙄

I maintain that there is no need to study for the SAT unless you come from some specific disadvantage. It is not content based and you can get a near-perfect score sans studying. Prep honestly seems like a waste of time and effort

 

[Lawpy]

You're like a giant satire of the premed ego



It's a 33-34. For future reference: http://i.imgur.com/cL34zC6.png

more to be found here

Look what you have done. Your claim that high MCAT scores rest on natural smarts and high IQ scores opened the door for haughty premeds 😉

That's what I say everytime this topic comes up! I was actually the first year where 1600 stopped being a good score. Maybe the shift was around then, because my highschool classmates were cutthroat and crazy intense about everything, and yet SAT studying/prep courses were not really a thing. Retakes were, though...I had a classmate basically force me to tell her my score and then she almost decided to retake her 2310 because I scored higher on math than she did. 🙄

I maintain that there is no need to study for the SAT unless you come from some specific disadvantage. It is not content based and you can get a near-perfect score sans studying. Prep honestly seems like a waste of time and effort

Even after the change, i don't think anyone really studies for the SAT. I just said that initially as an extrapolation

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

You're like a giant satire of the premed ego

It's funny you say that. I am actually friends with only one other premed (the aforementioned guy with the 8 on vr), and he's not even sure he wants to be premed (his major is ChemE)- he's applying to med school to see if he can get in, and then he'll decide. All of my friends say I'm the only premed they can stomach being around because I'm "not like the others- not nearly as neurotic, self-obsessed, and weirdly cliquey." My PI said I'd "make a great doc because I actually have social skills."

I'm not really sure how stating my percentile of IQ when it is directly pertinent to the topic at hand is egotistical, but whatever. I guess anonymity changes things- in real life, not a single person except my mother knows my MCAT score- I wouldn't even tell my dad because it made me feel ostentatious!

I think you're misinterpreting my post for one major reason. You think that by me saying I did well on the MCAT, I think that makes me better than anyone else- thus where the ego comes into play. I don't see an issue with stating my MCAT score and speaking of it objectively because to me, scoring highly on the MCAT is not the be-all, end-all of intelligence/value, and I don't think that doing well on it makes me a particularly smart person. There are a lot of positions I remain in absolute AWE of- you would not believe how much truck drivers amaze me, and waitresses, nail technicians, and athletes seem pretty spectacular to me too. I don't see doing well on the MCAT as much more of an accomplishment than driving a semi truck from Portland to Tampa, and that's why I speak so candidly about my score. In my mind, *you* actually seem like the egotistical one, because you're placing this value on the MCAT like doing well on it is this marker of hard work and greatness and intelligence and all that jazz, when to me, it's just one of a million different kinds of intelligence-one I, particularly, happen to be good at. I'm guessing you just read that sentence and went "bulls***." lol

Also (not directed to you), I really don't know how you can make the argument that MCAT and IQ are not closely linked. They may not have an r-value of 1, but at some point, natural intelligence comes into play- whether that's initially when you're learning the content in class (LOL definitely not for me) or when you're reasoning through the test (probably more so for me specifically.)


Just judging by your posts you seem like someone who wouldn't want to get along with me in real life, and that's ok! Dang, that ended up being much longer than expected.

 

[efle]

Prep honestly seems like a waste of time and effort

I had a lot of friends who took it blind, then did a ton of practice tests and took it again, and went up substantially. Especially for the writing section, and to a lesser degree in math, you benefit from practice. Plus some schools superscore so statistically it makes sense to take it as many times as possible, you get to sum up the positive variances

Look what you have done. Your claim that high MCAT scores rest on natural smarts and high IQ scores opened the door for haughty premeds 😉



Even after the change, i don't think anyone really studies for the SAT. I just said that initially as an extrapolation

If I ever meet a 40+ idiot I'll come bump this and publicly apologize

Dude, people absolutely study for it, like hardcore. For a lot of people the SAT is the one thing keeping them from Top 20s and they'll spend 100s of hours and many weekends maximizing that extra one or two hundred points, even if it's only a few percentile shift it's a big difference in competitiveness between like a 2150 and 2300

 

[mehc012]

I had a lot of friends who took it blind, then did a ton of practice tests and took it again, and went up substantially. Especially for the writing section, and to a lesser degree in math, you benefit from practice. Plus some schools superscore so statistically it makes sense to take it as many times as possible, you get to sum up the positive variances

Lol several people at my school scored 2300+ without prep courses/studying, so that's kind of what I'm talking about. Superscoring wouldn't change that in a meaningful way. Our English teacher did have us do some writing section practice, though, for whatever that's worth, but we were already practicing test essay writing just by taking so many AP exams
(yes this was public HS)

 

[efle]

It's funny you say that. I am actually friends with only one other premed (the aforementioned guy with the 8 on vr), and he's not even sure he wants to be premed (his major is ChemE)- he's applying to med school to see if he can get in, and then he'll decide. All of my friends say I'm the only premed they can stomach being around because I'm "not like the others- not nearly as neurotic, self-obsessed, and weirdly cliquey." My PI said I'd "make a great doc because I actually have social skills."

I'm not really sure how stating my percentile of IQ when it is directly pertinent to the topic at hand is egotistical, but whatever. I guess anonymity changes things- in real life, not a single person except my mother knows my MCAT score- I wouldn't even tell my dad because it made me feel ostentatious!

I think you're misinterpreting my post for one major reason. You think that by me saying I did well on the MCAT, I think that makes me better than anyone else- thus where the ego comes into play. I don't see an issue with stating my MCAT score and speaking of it objectively because to me, scoring highly on the MCAT is not the be-all, end-all of intelligence/value, and I don't think that doing well on it makes me a particularly smart person. There are a lot of positions I remain in absolute AWE of- you would not believe how much truck drivers amaze me, and waitresses, nail technicians, and athletes seem pretty spectacular to me too. I don't see doing well on the MCAT as much more of an accomplishment than driving a semi truck from Portland to Tampa, and that's why I speak so candidly about my score. In my mind, *you* actually seem like the egotistical one, because you're placing this value on the MCAT like doing well on it is this marker of hard work and greatness and intelligence and all that jazz, when to me, it's just one of a million different kinds of intelligence-one I, particularly, happen to be good at. I'm guessing you just read that sentence and went "bulls***." lol

Also, I really don't know how you can make the argument that MCAT and IQ are not closely linked. They may not have an r-value of 1, but at some point, intelligence comes into play- whether that's initially when you're learning the content in class (LOL definitely not for me) or when you're reasoning through the test (probably more so for me specifically.)


Just judging by your posts you seem like someone who wouldn't want to get along with me in real life, and that's ok! Dang, that ended up being much longer than expected.

damn I triggered a rant while on my best (probation) behavior!

I really don't have a low opinion of you, I just like to tease people. I've plastered my own 40+, high GPA, decent school etc on many threads.

Lol several people at my school scored 2300+ without prep courses/studying, so that's kind of what I'm talking about. Superscoring wouldn't change that in a meaningful way. Our English teacher did have us do some writing section practice, though, for whatever that's worth, but we were already practicing test essay writing just by taking so many AP exams
(yes this was public HS)

Hah same here, public HS but the english teachers were smart and just assigned us SAT writing practice + college essays practice all year

 

[Lawpy]

If I ever meet a 40+ idiot I'll come bump this and publicly apologize

Dude, people absolutely study for it, like hardcore. For a lot of people the SAT is the one thing keeping them from Top 20s and they'll spend 100s of hours and many weekends maximizing that extra one or two hundred points, even if it's only a few percentile shift it's a big difference in competitiveness between like a 2150 and 2300

Does that include the folks who went up from a 22 to a 38 on a retake? Because that actually happened rather often in the WAMC threads.

That's unusual but i guess it depends on the type of students we're discussing. The SAT was something that was not taking seriously and people still go to top universities despite that. But it's a separate topic for later.

I think looking back in the conversation, we are saying the same thing in different ways. I think my aspect of studying, test taking skills and good mindset (the last is incredibly important) requires some form of intelligence. And intelligence may be needed for efficient studying.

I just despise the term "natural smarts" and high IQs etc because these terms mean students are capped some way. I reject that, and optimistically say that anyone capable of being accepted into US medical school is intelligent. Unless we're talking being capped in the 30s (which itself is an excellent score), capping is entirely psychological and can be overcome with motivation and a better strategy

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

damn I triggered a rant while on my best (probation) behavior!

I really don't have a low opinion of you, I just like to tease people. I've plastered my own 40+, high GPA, decent school etc on many threads.

Haha ok cool. I think me not having premed friends is one of the reasons why I bring this up onine. It's my only avenue of discussing it, so I bring it up when it's pertinent to the topic at hand. The initial reason I actually made my reddit account (which led to my SDN account) was so I could discuss the White Sox with actual fans, since none of my friends are! I had to let it out somewhere, haha. But this is getting completely off topic. And tell me that girl who thought photosynthesis=taking pictures of plants could ever do well on the MCAT. But she is currently engaged and will make an excellent trophy wife to a very wealthy lawyer- something else I could never do! (I'm not nearly well versed enough in fashion, beauty, makeup techniques, etc, and I don't think I ever could be! I wish, though.)

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

I think looking back in the conversation, we are saying the same thing in different ways. I think my aspect of studying, test taking skills and good mindset (the last is incredibly important) requires some form of intelligence. And intelligence may be needed for efficient studying.

I just despise the term "natural smarts" and high IQs etc because these terms mean students are capped some way. I reject that, and optimistically say that anyone capable of being accepted into US medical school is intelligent. Unless we're talking being capped in the 30s (which itself is an excellent score), capping is entirely psychological and can be overcome with motivation and a better strategy

I like to think of it like height. We probably could all take steps to make it higher (in the case of height, better nutrition, posture, and exercise; in the case of MCAT, more studying), but eventually we all hit a ceiling.

Also, so much of it depends on upbringing. Could you take any baby and probably raise them and groom them to do well on the MCAT? Yes. But things happen along the way. You have a really crappy 6th grade math teacher that completely effs up your math foundation, so you can't understand physics as a college student. Your mom tells you that science is for boys, so you don't spend any time on your biology homework in middle school, and you can't do it in college because you never cared enough to begin with. Could you *eventually* get there (to a 30+)? Yeah, but it would take essentially recreating the education you were supposed to get all through middle school, high school, and college. That would take years, and it's just not practical.

 

[efle]

Does that include the folks who went up from a 22 to a 38 on a retake? Because that actually happened rather often in the WAMC threads.

That's unusual but i guess it depends on the type of students we're discussing. The SAT was something that was not taking seriously and people still go to top universities despite that. But it's a separate topic for later.

I think looking back in the conversation, we are saying the same thing in different ways. I think my aspect of studying, test taking skills and good mindset (the last is incredibly important) requires some form of intelligence. And intelligence may be needed for efficient studying.

I just despise the term "natural smarts" and high IQs etc because these terms mean students are capped some way. I reject that, and optimistically say that anyone capable of being accepted into US medical school is intelligent. Unless we're talking being capped in the 30s (which itself is an excellent score), capping is entirely psychological and can be overcome with motivation and a better strategy

This is explained by my "effective studying and lots of it, is necessary but not sufficient" view. If they're a top 1%-capable person and score below-median, then they're suffering from lack of effective studying. The fact that some smart people can make giant gains from studying properly and removing that huge handicap does not = the average joe can study their way to a 42.

I dunno about the mindset thing. People can go in extremely nervous and lacking confidence and still come out way in the right tail.

I'm sorry dude but people do have caps. I know plenty of people who, if their life depended on it, could not score a 40 no matter how much they studied. Willpower and effort cannot achieve all goals. It's the same in other arenas of life - no amount of effort will ever let me play ball like LeBron.

 

[edgerock24]

Lol I've never actually brought up my IQ before with anyone besides my parents (I know you won't believe me, but it's true)! Only because the first post said to go no holds barred did I even mention it. I'm actually not even sure exactly what it is- I only know the percentile.

I know it does sound like a humblebrag, but I try to provide a very honest assessment of my skills. I think especially with this new test, a lot of people have been struggling to find a new rigorous study plan they can follow, and since I was successful, mine happens to be one of the ones they look at. This makes me feel nervous and guilty because I know that my skill set is very different from most peoples'. Hell, we're all unique, and we all have different skills. I don't want people copying exactly what I do because it makes me feel guilty when it doesn't work as well for them. That's why I'm upfront in saying that I am a VERY good standardized test taker.

In all honestly, I don't think everyone has the potential to get a 525, or even a 515. That may make me sound elitist, arrogant, stuck up, cruel, b****y, and narrow-minded, but I can't help how I feel!

I think I am equally critical of myself, however. I am absolutely terrible at making myself work at things I *don't* care for. It's why I did so terribly in Calc 2, OChem 1&2, and Physics 2. Honestly, this hamartia (lol I sound REALLY arrogant now) may be the reason I might never be a doctor.

Hopefully you're not thinking of me as a terrible person now! If you are, oh well

Edit: I just noticed the hyperlink. Rude. Ha! Now I definitely don't care at all what you think about me!

You enjoy talking about yourself way too much.

 

[TUVIX]

this thread got funny pretty fast.

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

You enjoy talking about yourself way too much.

If someone points out a deficit in my character that I don't believe exists, I'm obviously going to justify my behavior.

And wtf makes you think I enjoy it? You're really rude, did you know that?

 

[Lawpy]

If someone points out a deficit in my character that I don't believe exists, I'm obviously going to justify my behavior.

And wtf makes you think I enjoy it? You're really rude, did you know that?

Yeah i didn't get that part. All i realize is we are stuck in an impasse (@efle included). Of course, everyone (myself included obviously) would like to attribute good MCAT scores to our smarts and that's fine.

My argument against capping, IQ, and natural smarts is just to help assure people who are stuck with low scores to not lose hope and that they can do well on the MCAT. This is why i believe that capping only occurs in the 30s-40s and not in 20s or lower.

It seems like my stance slightly changed but that's only because the criteria i proposed seemingly requires intelligence in some way

 

[TUVIX]

Yeah i didn't get that part. All i realize is we are stuck in an impasse (@efle included). Of course, everyone (myself included obviously) would like to attribute good MCAT scores to our smarts and that's fine.

My argument against capping, IQ, and natural smarts is just to help assure people who are stuck with low scores to not lose hope and that they can do well on the MCAT. This is why i believe that capping only occurs in the 30s-40s and not in 20s or lower.

We are only theorizing. Obviously there is a correlation between intelligence and test scores, but it is also obvious (because of anecdotal evidence) that it is not a 1:1 relationship. There is variation. Some high IQ people won't do well. Some lower IQ people will do well. That pretty much sums up the actual answer to this thread unless you were to actually do a study and find a statistically significant trend.

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

Yeah i didn't get that part. All i realize is we are stuck in an impasse (@efle included). Of course, everyone (myself included obviously) would like to attribute good MCAT scores to our smarts and that's fine.

My argument against capping, IQ, and natural smarts is just to help assure people who are stuck with low scores to not lose hope and that they can do well on the MCAT. This is why i believe that capping only occurs in the 30s-40s and not in 20s or lower.

It seems like my stance slightly changed but that's only because the criteria i proposed seemingly requires intelligence in some way

Sure. I mean, people who take the MCAT are already a self-selected group in that they obviously know the amount of science involved and are interested in it, so it's not like their foundation is completely screwed up. I think most people who care enough to post on this board could make it onto the 70th percentile, as a minimum, if they studied hard enough. I do believe capping occurs in the 20s for maybe your average person on the street, though, who has no ambitions of going into healthcare.

And then you have the people that are only attempting to go into medical school because of societal/familial pressures, or because they just don't understand what it entails, and those people are probably not capable of doing super great either, in certain scenarios.

 

[Lawpy]

We are only theorizing. Obviously there is a correlation between intelligence and test scores, but it is also obvious (because of anecdotal evidence) that it is not a 1:1 relationship. There is variation. Some high IQ people won't do well. Some lower IQ people will do well. That pretty much sums up the actual answer to this thread unless you were to actually do a study and find a statistically significant trend.

I agree with that. I am just being wary and opposing any negative extrapolation, although to efle and others dismay, i still think it's optimally possible (in best case) to study your way to a 40+. And yes i view a 37 to be indistinguishable from a 42.

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

I agree with that. I am just being wary and opposing any negative extrapolation, although to efle and others dismay, i still think it's optimally possible (in best case) to study your way to a 40+. And yes i view a 37 to be indistinguishable from a 42.

Just out of curiosity, what type of undergrad do you/did you go to?

 

[Lawpy]

Sure. I mean, people who take the MCAT are already a self-selected group in that they obviously know the amount of science involved and are interested in it, so it's not like their foundation is completely screwed up. I think most people who care enough to post on this board could make it onto the 70th percentile, as a minimum, if they studied hard enough. I do believe capping occurs in the 20s for maybe your average person on the street, though, who has no ambitions of going into healthcare.

And then you have the people that are only attempting to go into medical school because of societal/familial pressures, or because they just don't understand what it entails, and those people are probably not capable of doing super great either, in certain scenarios.

The WAMC and osteopathic forums consistently refer to applicants who are somehow stuck at 20s, which i believe led to the notion that a 30 is rare to achieve. Of course there are numerous factors and scenarios involved as you mentioned. This only means that the people who want to do well and get into medical school but are stuck in the 20s are struggling in at least one aspect, be it study tactics, test taking, anxiety etc. All of which can be remedied.

Just a small optimism for wary premeds taking/took the MCAT. At the very least, they can score a 30 with good prep, good mindset and good test taking skills, all of which are obtained through practice and supportive group. But in no means do i suggest that those who are stuck in 20s are fundamentally flawed. It's just one of many factors to get into med school.

Just out of curiosity, what type of undergrad do you/did you go to?

It's just a random unknown college. I'm just a lowly vagabond seeing what's happening on SDN and trying to ease the worries of distressed premeds.

It's one reason why i don't like this thread just by looking at the title. A curiosity susceptible to an unhealthy mix of anxiety, pessimism and low self-esteem aggravated by arrogance

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

The WAMC and osteopathic forums consistently refer to applicants who are somehow stuck at 20s, which i believe led to the notion that a 30 is rare to achieve. Of course there are numerous factors and scenarios involved as you mentioned. This only means that the people who want to do well and get into medical school but are stuck in the 20s are struggling in at least one aspect, be it study tactics, test taking, anxiety etc. All of which can be remedied.

Just a small optimism for wary premeds taking/took the MCAT. At the very least, they can score a 30 with good prep, good mindset and good test taking skills, all of which are obtained through practice and supportive group. But in no means do i suggest that those who are stuck in 20s are fundamentally flawed.

Ah, and here is the cruelest paradox of all! The more these people study, the higher raw scores are, and thus their percentiles remain constant, especially on the 2015 MCAT! Of course, this is given that everyone can somehow find a way to shape up.

Edit: if you ever think that anyone could get a 40 on the MCAT, go to literally any YouTube video and read the comments. I assure you you will change your mind.

 

[ZedsDed]

Look what you have done. Your claim that high MCAT scores rest on natural smarts and high IQ scores opened the door for haughty premeds 😉



Even after the change, i don't think anyone really studies for the SAT. I just said that initially as an extrapolation

Excuse me if you've already addressed this, making my way through every single one of your posts here would take a while. I'm seeing you disparage IQ tests a lot. Do you have anything, besides your own anecdotal experiences, that counters the empirical data showing that IQ scores predict life outcomes (income, life satisfaction, etc.) better than poverty, gender, race, and education?

 

[resiroth]

I've met smart people that scored low (30-33 that is), but I haven't met stupid people that scored high. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Lawpy]

Ah, and here is the cruelest paradox of all! The more these people study, the higher raw scores are, and thus their percentiles remain constant, especially on the 2015 MCAT! Of course, this is given that everyone can somehow find a way to shape up.

Edit: if you ever think that anyone could get a 40 on the MCAT, go to literally any YouTube video and read the comments. I assure you you will change your mind.

That is a sad possibility, but test taking skills, good mindset, and how to study efficiently all work in an individul concept. So it naturally spreads people out in the end.

i'm aware, but it can be surprising that seemingly confused idiots on comment boards can actually work differently in test taking conditions. It should be that these guys would fail, but some can surprisingly do well.

Excuse me if you've already addressed this, making my way through every single one of your posts here would take a while. I'm seeing you disparage IQ tests a lot. Do you have anything, besides your own anecdotal experiences, that counters the empirical data showing that IQ scores predict life outcomes (income, life satisfaction, etc.) better than poverty, gender, race, and education?

Because IQ tests have been long examined to be the only metric for assessing intelligence and are thus widely misinterpreted. Then we have businesses today abandoning the IQ concept for more direct academic performance and other psychological assessments like tests for creativity and emotional aptitude.

The comparison studies placing income/job performance with IQ is indirect in that the authors compare the desired factor to academic performance and assume that academics correspond to IQ in a predefined scale (as in professional education shows 120, college graduate 110 etc.)

Despite its name and intended purpose, IQ tests only cover one small aspect and are prone to extreme misinterpretation and abuse.

 

[MrChance2]

didn't read this but just popped this into google. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx Seems about right. Bottom 25% of doctors are slightly above average and top 25% are genius range. I think MCAT physical sciences and verbal reasoning are strongly correlated with IQ. Biological sciences moderately correlated. Judging by the 20 or so people in my class for whom I know their MCAT scores I think it relates very well to IQ but IQ beyond the top 20-25% or so does not relate very well to success in medical school classes.

Edit to add other interesting fact: The bottom 5% of doctors have a lower IQ than the top 5% of Janitors. Life isn't really an IQ test.

 

[justadream]

I was going to comment but I don't know what a 515 is equal to

Story of my life lol.

Not looking forward to when everyone starts using 3 digit MCAT scores.