IQ correlate with MCAT?

Get Your Med School Admissions Questions Answered!
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Wolfpack93

Wolfpack93

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
883
Reaction score
632
I'm sitting here bored at work and decided to take an IQ test. I was wondering if there was any significant correlation between peoples IQ and their MCAT score or if anyone had ever really looked into this? Just thought it might be interesting to see if these correlated at all.
Members don't see this ad.
 
When you start studying for the P/S section, you'll see why the IQ is a horrible representation to one's intelligence.

Lawper beat me. Ugh. Truly was an "in before".
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I took the MCAT and agree that IQ isn't the best representation. I guess I was just kind of wondering if there really was a correlation seeing as the IQ test is something you can't really study for while the MCAT is something you can at least somewhat study for. But yeah g factor does make sense.
 
readImage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
first of all, unless you actually took the WAIS or another test proctored by a licensed psychologist, I doubt it was the best guess of your real IQ (for better or worse)

second, because it is a reasoning test, I would assume you may see a correlation between IQ and MCAT score. but also remember you need to know information before taking the test, so even an IQ 140+ wouldn't get you a high score if you've never taken a chemistry or biology class before

you IQ likely has something to do with how fast you learn the material and how well/quickly you are able to integrate the passages and apply it on test day.

In my opinion, everyone does have a "range" of MCAT scores which depend on things like intelligence, reasoning skills, and amount studied
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
TheBiologist said:
first of all, unless you actually took the WAIS or another test proctored by a licensed psychologist, I doubt it was the best guess of your real IQ (for better or worse)

second, because it is a reasoning test, I would assume you may see a correlation between IQ and MCAT score. but also remember you need to know information before taking the test, so even an IQ 140+ wouldn't get you a high score if you've never taken a chemistry or biology class before

you IQ likely has something to do with how fast you learn the material and how well/quickly you are able to integrate the passages and apply it on test day.

In my opinion, everyone does have a "range" of MCAT scores which depend on things like intelligence, reasoning skills, and amount studied
Click to expand...
probably not seeing as I'm at work and googled IQ test. But everything on the internet is fact right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
TheBiologist said:
first of all, unless you actually took the WAIS or another test proctored by a licensed psychologist, I doubt it was the best guess of your real IQ (for better or worse)

second, because it is a reasoning test, I would assume you may see a correlation between IQ and MCAT score. but also remember you need to know information before taking the test, so even an IQ 140+ wouldn't get you a high score if you've never taken a chemistry or biology class before

you IQ likely has something to do with how fast you learn the material and how well/quickly you are able to integrate the passages and apply it on test day.

In my opinion, everyone does have a "range" of MCAT scores which depend on things like intelligence, reasoning skills, and amount studied
Click to expand...

I scored quite well on my first try despite never having taken a single physics course. To some extent, native cognitive ability is going to influence scores, even in the absence of definite knowledge of the subject. But I'd guess that effect is soon overwhelmed by actual study and content review.

Put another way, if you gave the test cold to a few dozen humanities majors who'd never stepped into a lab, IQ would likely correlate strongly with performance. But the highest scoring among them would still not do as well as someone with slightly below average intelligence who had the opportunity to take the courses and to study in advance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Promethean said:
I scored quite well on my first try despite never having taken a single physics course. To some extent, native cognitive ability is going to influence scores, even in the absence of definite knowledge of the subject. But I'd guess that effect is soon overwhelmed by actual study and content review.

Put another way, if you gave the test cold to a few dozen humanities majors who'd never stepped into a lab, IQ would likely correlate strongly with performance. But the highest scoring among them would still not do as well as someone with slightly below average intelligence who had the opportunity to take the courses and to study in advance.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? it would be interesting to actually see the results of a study like this haha. I just think that someone with a 130+ IQ could probably pull off a decent score just because the passages give you so much info. And CARS is 0% content knowledge as well. I mean obviously content knowledge has some effect I just wonder to what extent it actually matters.
 
My take on it is that neither intelligence nor effort is sufficient for a very high (say top percent) score, and both are necessary. Everyone I know that scored astronomically worked their butts off for it, but were also very, very bright students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I could see a correlation between the two (when IQ is properly measured, not with an online "IQ" quiz) simply because the purpose of the IQ measure is to predict academic success.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Wolfpack93 said:
Are you sure about this? it would be interesting to actually see the results of a study like this haha. I just think that someone with a 130+ IQ could probably pull off a decent score just because the passages give you so much info. And CARS is 0% content knowledge as well. I mean obviously content knowledge has some effect I just wonder to what extent it actually matters.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I can't afford to run the study, but I think it would bear out in reality. I'm not saying that completely science naive geniuses would be able to score in the higher percentiles. Just that brighter people will guess better even if they don't know the material. They will see patterns and be able to rule out highly unlikely answers more easily, and so will do better than someone just picking answers totally at random. That alone wouldn't be adequate for a good score... but if they were measured only against others who were taking the test without preparation or prior knowledge, I think it is extremely likely that higher IQs would yield higher scores.

If you are asking whether a hardworking but not especially bright student could really score better than a bright but untaught one? Yes, absolutely. I've seen that dynamic before. Tons of academically successful people are not the brightest bulbs.. just the most diligent.

As someone else said above, a really stellar score takes hard work and native talent. But if I had to choose one over the other? Natural genius doesn't accomplish anything without discipline.
 
Wolfpack93 said:
I'm sitting here bored at work and decided to take an IQ test. I was wondering if there was any significant correlation between peoples IQ and their MCAT score or if anyone had ever really looked into this? Just thought it might be interesting to see if these correlated at all.
Click to expand...
1) There's obviously a correlation

2) Online IQ tests are all fake
 
the questions you would receive on the MCAT i would presume would be on the side of physics and chemistry like logic, both of which are very linear and mathematical in nature which are similar to what IQ tests base their scores off of, with their pattern finding and what not, so i would say that there could be some correlation, but only at face value. I'm sure if someone did a study of it and made a line graph of it, that there would be higher MCAT scores the higher the IQ assuming that all the surveyed had the same amount of knowledge on the subjects.
 
@efle said it correctly, I think. It requires both. You can't be content naive and score well on the non-verbal subjects. I always describe the mcat as an iq test that uses science knowledge as its given info. Whereas an iq test gives you the info you need so everyone is on the same plane (all zorts are zeets, some zeets are zaps...), that info is science knowledge on the mcat. But the more difficult science questions on the mcat are absolutely not just content, they require high level thinking and pattern recognition.

In speculation, I would say high iq, high level of science knowledge >> high level of science knowledge, average iq > low level of science knowledge, high iq > neither.
 
I would like to humbly propose that your MCAT score would likely be better if you spent your time studying for the MCAT rather than taking online IQ tests. :-/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
efle said:
Interesting, since the first post was in June 2015, so if you took your real MCAT afterwards you wouldn't have been on the 45 point scale.
Click to expand...
Nope I was just referencing my highest practice score. This account is a throwaway. And while I may have made this account originally as a throwaway, this particular post happens to be true ;)

I applaud your detective skills with so little to go on however.
 
I took the old AAMC free practice test before I'd taken any of the prereq classes/studying/practice (totally cold) and got a 30, 11 verbal, 10 chem/phys, 9 bio--this is between 60-70% of the questions right for 80%ile.

After taking the classes I got a 100%ile score on the new exam--imo the new exam rewards hard work up to about 515 and intelligence above that. Time pressure and passage complexity make the new test impossible without hard work.

I think the emphasis on a combination of hard work and intelligence makes the new test more valuable than the old test for selecting for doctors. On the other hand the new test favors bio and chemistry majors heavily...
 
Nommonnom said:
I took the old AAMC free practice test before I'd taken any of the prereq classes/studying/practice (totally cold) and got a 30, 11 verbal, 10 chem/phys, 9 bio--this is between 60-70% of the questions right for 80%ile.

After taking the classes I got a 100%ile score on the new exam--imo the new exam rewards hard work up to about 515 and intelligence above that. Time pressure and passage complexity make the new test impossible without hard work.

I think the emphasis on a combination of hard work and intelligence makes the new test more valuable than the old test for selecting for doctors. On the other hand the new test favors bio and chemistry majors heavily...
Click to expand...
Wait what makes it better? Old test didn't reward the mix of knowledge and problem solving ability?
 
efle said:
Wait what makes it better? Old test didn't reward the mix of knowledge and problem solving ability?
Click to expand...

You could just be smart and do well enough on the old test without any work at all.
 
Nommonnom said:
You could just be smart and do well enough on the old test without any work at all.
Click to expand...
You moved up to a score 40x less common by studying! And your verbal saved you, which obviously isn't study based, while your Bio was at the average.

I'd be surprised if you did much worse than 80th on a blind take of the newer version. If anything people taking both have reported the new one to be less recall and more problem solving based on the passage!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
efle said:
You moved up to a score 40x less common by studying! And your verbal saved you, which obviously isn't study based, while your Bio was at the average.

I'd be surprised if you did much worse than 80th on a blind take of the newer version. If anything people taking both have reported the new one to be less recall and more problem solving based on the passage!
Click to expand...

Reading those scientific articles on the new test was basically impossible for me last year--I just simply didn't know the words. So for the bio, chem, and psych I'd say the sections are essentially impossible without heavy study.
 
Nommonnom said:
Reading those scientific articles on the new test was basically impossible for me last year--I just simply didn't know the words. So for the bio, chem, and psych I'd say the sections are essentially impossible without heavy study.
Click to expand...
This was true on the old test too, hence your 56th percentile Bio despite being a person capable of a near perfect score.
 
Nommonnom said:
Reading those scientific articles on the new test was basically impossible for me last year--I just simply didn't know the words. So for the bio, chem, and psych I'd say the sections are essentially impossible without heavy study.
Click to expand...
This. I may be wrong, but I studied for the old one and took the new one, and I found the passages themselves to be tougher to decipher. I say this having taken all of the AAMC practice exams (for old test).
 
I hope they someday release info on raw score -> section score for the new test so we can see if the test is really different in how hard it feels/raw numbers correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This might not be relevant to the topic at hand but do you feel like after a certain score it's mainly luck? Depending on the test you get that day.
 
lexswift said:
This might not be relevant to the topic at hand but do you feel like after a certain score it's mainly luck? Depending on the test you get that day.
Click to expand...
At the very upper end, it certainly used to be. Verbal used to be reported as "13-15" because the upper end gets extremely oversensitive, with a single question wrong being worth a full point. Phys/Chem was similar, dropping you from 15 to 14 on one or two errors. Someone capable of a 44 on one day could very easily get a 40 if they tested again the next week.

The new test addressed this a lot though, eg. 13-15 V on the old test are all now a 132 CARS on the new one, same with 14-15 Phys/Chem both becoming a 132. Something like a 34 vs 38 I'd have a hard time attributing to luck (515 vs 521 on the new test).
 
efle said:
At the very upper end, it certainly used to be. Verbal used to be reported as "13-15" because the upper end gets extremely oversensitive, with a single question wrong being worth a full point. Phys/Chem was similar, dropping you from 15 to 14 on one or two errors. Someone capable of a 44 on one day could very easily get a 40 if they tested again the next week.

The new test addressed this a lot though, eg. 13-15 V on the old test are all now a 132 CARS on the new one, same with 14-15 Phys/Chem both becoming a 132. Something like a 34 vs 38 I'd have a hard time attributing to luck (515 vs 521 on the new test).
Click to expand...

That would make sense why there are a lot of perfect scores with the new test! I feel like I almost never saw a perfect score on the old test.

So you're saying after a 38 it's luck? But getting to a 38 is doable with hard work and adequate preparation.
 
lexswift said:
That would make sense why there are a lot of perfect scores with the new test! I feel like I almost never saw a perfect score on the old test.

So you're saying after a 38 it's luck? But getting to a 38 is doable with hard work and adequate preparation.
Click to expand...
Yes, 132s are a lot more common than 15s!

I'd guess after a 38 the confidence interval widens considerably, yeah. I don't think you can get to the top percentile just from a good work ethic. You need a good work ethic and brainpower (in my opinion)!
 
QofQuimica said:
I would like to humbly propose that your MCAT score would likely be better if you spent your time studying for the MCAT rather than taking online IQ tests. :-/
Click to expand...
Along similar lines, I was going to suggest that while MCAT isn't an IQ test, there's an extremely strong correlation between people insecure about their relative intelligence and finding the need to google or take an IQ test. The confidently smart people on this planet have no need for this kind of dubious validation. So basically if you've checked your IQ you've already lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
gonnif said:
With no data, it isnt obvious but perhaps a reasonable hypothesis
Click to expand...
It's obvious.

Having worked extensively with IQ tests doing psych research and clinical research, and having recently taken the MCAT, I would stake my life on there being a correlation without a second thought.

I hate nature vs. nurture debates. Fortunate nature (i.e. high IQ) is beneficial, high-quality nurture (i.e. studying) is beneficial. Always. Both correlate with success. We can certainly debate the relative significance of each, but both play non-negligible roles.

/every nature vs. nurture debate ever
 
gonnif said:
"Be careful of demeaning words like "obviously", "clearly", or "undoubtedly." Something that is obvious to you may not be obvious to the reader."
Lesson III: Concision and Simplicity, Scientific Writing Resource, Duke University Graduate School

Your life isnt worth that much using the basis of scientific method as the guidebook. As a researcher, it would be obvious that you know this but apparently not. As an individual planning to enter medicine, which is essentially being an applied biomedical researcher, it should be obvious to rely on fact based medicine, and having a second thought is good when analyzing a situation. As a prospective physician, it should be obvious that you will be constantly explaining and educating patients so being accurate would be an obvious goal to that end. And lastly, it should be obvious when expressing things in public forum to easily impressionable young mind that how you say something is as important as what you say. Then of course, you would think that would be obvious to certain presidential candidates but its not.

Back to your research with IQ and such, it should be obvious that statistical analysis would be used and therefore correlation should mean single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables. Since there is no data on this here for IQ and MCAT, a reasonable hypothesis can be made that IQ will have some correlation to MCAT. That much is obvious
Click to expand...
That resource is referring to scientific writing on complex topics. I'm not trying to write that way in an online forum, especially about such a simple topic. Still, I apologize if my word choice seemed demeaning to you.

But come on. Do we also need data to assume, without a shadow of a doubt, that there exists some correlation between arm size and max bicep curl weight? Guys with huge arms will tend to be able to lift more than guys with scrawny arms. There are other factors, but there will be a correlation, I promise you that.
 
walloobi said:
That resource is referring to scientific writing on complex topics. I'm not trying to write that way in an online forum, especially about such a simple topic. Still, I apologize if my word choice seemed demeaning to you.

But come on. Do we also need data to assume, without a shadow of a doubt, that there exists some correlation between arm size and max bicep curl weight? Guys with huge arms will tend to be able to lift more than guys with scrawny arms. There are other factors, but there will be a correlation, I promise you that.
Click to expand...
SDN does not like the thought that factors besides effort can determine fates!

Wouldn't YOU be upset to hear your lifelong dream of attending HMS might not be possible with effort alone??

This is my theory anyways, based on all the posts you see that say "I haven't taken the MCAT yet but plan to study as much as necessary to get a top 20 competitive score..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
efle said:
SDN does not like the thought that factors besides effort can determine fates!

Wouldn't YOU be upset to hear your lifelong dream of attending HMS might not be possible with effort alone??

This is my theory anyways, based on all the posts you see that say "I haven't taken the MCAT yet but plan to study as much as necessary to get a top 20 competitive score..."
Click to expand...
lol very true, I just expected gonnif to know better
 
efle said:
My take on it is that neither intelligence nor effort is sufficient for a very high (say top percent) score, and both are necessary. Everyone I know that scored astronomically worked their butts off for it, but were also very, very bright students.
Click to expand...
I think this is the entire point of the MCAT.

You can't just be smart to be a successful med student. You can't be a hard working imbecile either. You have to have both qualities to succeed in this profession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
gonnif said:
Practicing good science and medicine for prospective physicians, especially in a public forum, should always be done. When applicants wonder why community service is so highly thought of at an adcom, is because physician are almost always "on" in their community. SDN is that community for us and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
This is off-topic. Don't pick fights just for the sake of picking fights. I don't need to practice "good science" to know that someone with an IQ of 60 will never be able to crush the MCAT.
 
gonnif said:
Being good on the MCAT requires many traits/skills but my comment was solely on the word "obvious" bandied about.

Taking a hard working individual with reasonable intelligence who has successfully done well for some years in college can do well on the MCAT. Having innate high-level IQ would help but certainly is not sufficient factor upon itself to do well. Most applicant who I meet and help with terrible college backgrounds usually have done so due to factors outside of IQ. In some respects, I would say preparation, focus, and discipline is likely a more important factor for MCAT success than is IQ
Click to expand...
gonnif said:
Not picking fights in anyway, shape or form. Just pointing out proper use of language on a topic in a public forum that will be read by many and should be clear to those future readers. Since our basis for IQ in this model would be college students, assumption of normal IQ would be made
Click to expand...
1) I never said that IQ is more predictive of MCAT success than preparation, focus, and discipline. I simply said there exists some correlation. Refer to my earlier post on nature vs. nurture.

2) If you want to discuss your issues with the word "obvious," feel free to PM me about it. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you but I came to this thread to discuss correlations between IQ and the MCAT, not to debate PC semantics.
 
The MCAT has a loose correlation to IQ but not a good one.

I consider myself of only slightly above average intelligence, but I managed a 95th percentile score on the MCAT. How? I gave up my life for 6 months.

You'll hear people say the MCAT is a test of just reasoning, and that if you aren't uncommonly intellectually gifted then you won't do well. Those are the people who didn't work at it.

Most of the pre-med population has the potential to do well, given enough effort.
 
Commer_Knocker said:
The MCAT has a loose correlation to IQ but not a good one.

I consider myself of only slightly above average intelligence, but I managed a 95th percentile score on the MCAT. How? I gave up my life for 6 months.

You'll hear people say the MCAT is a test of just reasoning, and that if you aren't uncommonly intellectually gifted then you won't do well. Those are the people who didn't work at it.

Most of the pre-med population has the potential to do well, given enough effort.
Click to expand...
Alternative explanation: you're a lot further above the median in intelligence than you think!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

M
Is there any evidence to suggest that better residencies correlate to better pay?
Replies
25
Views
2K
Flodaddy
F
Richanesthesiologist
Does MCAT correlate with class performance
Replies
9
Views
2K
AnatomyGrey12
A
Escherian
Is post-interview acceptance rate strongly correlated with how early/late in the cycle the II is sent?
Replies
5
Views
3K
KnightDoc
K
little_giant
Correlation between Quality of teaching and STEP scores?
Replies
27
Views
2K
aldol16
A
premedalt
Correlation of MCAT subsection scores to USMLE Step 1 Performance?
Replies
37
Views
17K
TheIllusionist
TheIllusionist
Top