Is it really this near impossible to get into med school?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
There are 2 different things being discussed here.

1)The national averages in the MSAR
2)The information that the AAMC provides for matriculated students

Is it possible that when you contacted them you asked them(or they assumed you were asking about) number 2? Because in that case you would both be right.
It is possible but very, very improbable. I contacted the email for MSAR related questions and we explicitly discussed accepted students. The word "accepted" was both in my email and in the answer.

Members don't see this ad.
 
"A head full of fear has no room to dream." Everyone has their own length and path. I say if this is something you really wanna do you'll find a way, I wouldn't worry about what others say. Thats my 2 cents anyway. (I feel like I just made a rhyme lol)
 
Honestly, I think the main reason that MCAT scores have gone up in recent years has been the willingness of applicants to shell out $$$ for those MCAT preparation courses along with better resources available online. If you look at the average for top tiers MDs, the median has been hovering around 36 for the past couple of years.

For the middle tier MDs, the average MCAT score is about 30-33 depending on locations, with the average being closer to 33 when the school is close to a major metropolitan area.
But the significant changes are in the median for accepted students, not for the distribution of the results of the test for that year. You can see the latter in the links that DrMidlife posted earlier.
Ultimately, one should aim to get the best score possible anyway, so the discussion here is not necessary constructive. :)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It is possible but very, very improbable. I contacted the email for MSAR related questions and we explicitly discussed accepted students. The word "accepted" was both in my email and in the answer.

Well, thats unfortunate.
 
Not everyone taking the test is applying. Not everyone applying has taken the test that year.
Alternatively, you can assume that AAMC does not know how to calculate the media or has wrong data. :shrug:

People here are making basic statistical mistakes. If 2 people were accepted, one getting a 21 and one a perfect 45, you would get an average of 33. If 5 people got a 30.6 and one a 45, the average would still be a 33, and again if someone got a 26,27,28,29,43, and a 45, again, 33. One more time; 28,28,28,28,41,45 = 33 You actually care more about the highest modes when comparing this kinda data, the frequency of each score accepted. Mode can VASTLY differ from average, but statistically it's what you care about the most for the "what's my shot of getting in". Average means almost nothing to you. So the table drmidlife posted I think is a better representation of the question being asked.

Try extrapolating from this data; a 33 puts you in the 90.6 percentile. Roughly 42% of applicants are accepted, with a mode of roughly 26-28. How do you square (not ^2, but rather rationalize) you average score of 33 when only 9.4% of people obtain this score or above yet 42% of people get in.


Now looking at the data a different way, lets assume the 42% accepted is the top 42% (its not, but lets just say for the sake of argument) . That would mean anyone with a 27 or higher would be getting in.
 
Last edited:
People here are making basic statistical mistakes. If 2 people were accepted, one getting a 21 and one a perfect 45, you would get an average of 33. If 5 people got a 30.6 and one a 45, the average would still be a 33, and again if someone got a 26,27,28,29,43, and a 45, again, 33. One more time; 28,28,28,28,41,45 = 33 You actually care more about the highest modes when comparing this kinda data, the frequency of each score accepted. Mode can VASTLY differ from average, but statistically it's what you care about the most for the "what's my shot of getting in". Average means almost nothing to you. So the table drmidlife posted I think is a better representation of the question being asked.

Try extrapolating from this data; a 33 puts you in the 90.6 percentile. Roughly 42% of applicants are accepted, with a mode of roughly 26-28. How do you square (not ^2, but rather rationalize) you average score of 33 when only 9.4% of people obtain this score or above yet 42% of people get in.

Now looking at the data a different way, lets assume the 42% accepted is the top 42% (its not, but lets just say for the sake of argument) . That would mean anyone with a 27 or higher would be getting in.
Never mind what I wrote below. The accepted applicants are actually around 20,000 and half of them about 10,000 which is fairly close to the number of applicants having MCAT > 32, so it all works out just right.

this is incorrect:
Yes, it is rather strange, a median of 33 would imply the presence of almost 10,000 applicants who have taken the MCAT in other years to make the numbers work. With only about 12,000 re-applicants in 2013 that does not seem very likely but I don't have a better explanation.
Of course, you can question the number published by AAMC or whether they made a mistake calculating it but it is not a complicated calculation and I'll be surprised if that turned out to be the case.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say the calculation they are doing is necessarily wrong, it's just how/what you are using it for. As that example shows, giving an average doesn't tell you much about your data set in the terms that we are asking. Think of it this way, there may be a ton of 28's, 29's, and 30's, and a few outliers at the top that drag the average up. The mode is what you want to be looking at, which I don't think they provide anywhere. I would look at it as long as you score a 27+, you have a chance to get in, because you're in the top 40%. Even if you think about reapplicants, you have to consider that the people reapplying probably had a lower then average MCAT, otherwise they would have been accepted the first go around, so the previous year/years (when they took the test) would have had their scores drag the average down, but we don't see that. So reapplicants can't be issue here. One thing to keep in mind, is there is 12 points above the average to a perfect score, and all of those people are getting in. But there isn't an equal weight on the other side of the curve, its all bottom loaded. IE your distribution is shaped like half a parabola. People with a 45 will get in, but people with a 21 aren't getting in (12 points in either direction of the average). Very few 0-26 are accepted, but almost all 33-45 are; which leads to a skewed average when compared to the mode.
 
Your view from friends is very skewed. Not getting in with a 3.8 and a 30 MCAT means your friend's friend was doing something wrong. A 3.8 and a 30 is quite good, and unless there is some big red flag, would have garnered some acceptances. The same for every other story of people with GPAs closer to 4.0 than to 3.5 and >30 MCATs who don't get in; they all either did something wrong, or there is more to the story that you don't know. I am sure there is a very small handful of these people who truly have plain old bad luck, where they applied early, with no red flags, to a good number of schools including safeties, and weren't accepted anywhere, but for every applicant who has that type of luck, there are dozens who were rejected for a concrete reason, whether you are aware of the reason or not.

Things these people could be doing wrong include applying late, applying to schools they have low chances at admission to, applying to too few schools, etc. Things that can be wrong with their applications that you don't know include criminal records, institutional actions on their records, lack of ECs, lack of diversity in their ECs, bad LORs, and probably the most under-diagnosed; failure to perform well at interviews. Simply put, anyone like this who failed to make it to med school did something, or multiple somethings, wrong.

It is not so much of a crap-shoot that someone with decent grades, decent MCAT, decent ECs and positive LOR's has a poor chance at admission. Your plan sounds good to me, and unless you have some aspects of your application that will give adcoms pause, you are not facing "near impossible" chances. Basically, don't let your impression of others' rejections despite your perception of their application strength keep you from pursuing this. Follow the good advice on this site from the well-established members, especially the Adcoms who post here, and you will have a better-than-average chance at acceptance.


Who are the people saying this to you? Do they know much about nontrads and/or have insider information based on serving as an adcom? My experience has been that most premed advisors do not know how to advise nontrad students. The more nontraditional you are, the more this is a problem. I applied at age 30 with a 4.0 GPA for my PhD, a 43 MCAT, and no UG grades/GPA/credit hours from my hippie LAC. I was teaching gen chem and organic chem; most of my students were premeds. You know what advice I got from the friendly university premed advisor? Retake the prereqs for grades. Seriously. She thought I should go from teaching chemistry classes to premeds one semester, to taking chemistry classes alongside my students the next.


Well, there's only one sure way to definitely fail, and that's to never apply. :eyebrow:


Stop right here. Comparing yourself to other people is a game that you will always lose, every time. There is nothing in this world that you are the very best at. That's ok. You can still be a competitive applicant without being perfect. Adcoms aren't looking for perfection in applicants.


No, it's not near impossible. Granted, there are no guarantees with med school admissions any more than there are guarantees with anything else. But there are certainly many things you can do to greatly increase your odds of getting into medical school. The reason why most people follow certain tried and true paths is because they are more likely to work. Try to take things one step at a time instead of worrying about it all at once. Right now, you are early on in the process. Your job this semester is to ace your post bac classes (or as close to it as possible), and to get some clinical experience. That's just two things. You can do two things. Don't even think about the rest of it right now.


I'm going to pretend you never even wrote this sentence. See above.


There are no guarantees. There have been people with absurdly good numerical scores who didn't get into med school. Why? Because that's only part of the analysis. If you think a 3.X/30 with X00 hours of volunteering guarantees you admission into med school you will be sorely disappointed. It's a very competitive process focused as much on "good fit" and putting together an intellectually diverse, gifted class. Programs are trying to put together an interesting class with varied perspectives. The days when set numbers got you in ended 20 years ago. look at the numbers as more if a cut off than something that actually guarantees admission. You will see people who think they are entitled to admission just because they have great numbers crash and burn every year.


I love horror stories from pre-med kids. I will tell you one thing. You know yourself best. Don't let others tell you what you can or can't do.

As for the nonsense spewing from failures out there, I would just advise you to close your ears and focus on your endpoints. Failures tend to exxagerate their accomplishment to excuse for their undoings. Don't listen to them. I just giggle when So-So exaggerates about how he/she fails to do this while having these stats in the stratosphere. It's just for laugh. If you want a realistic gauge, I would advise you to look up the average matriculated GPA and MCAT for schools that you are interested in. The averages for allo schools are about 3.6 cgpa, 3.6 sgpa, and 30-31 MCAT. These numbers are just to get you through the door for II. Your ECs are going to make a huge difference for that final acceptance letter.

It's the same bs for kids exxagerating the difficulties of certain classes. At the end of the day, it's all about your intellectual aptitude, time management, and the amount of work you put into. Non-trads have an advantage over trads in that we have to juggle other priorities in life, such as job and family, while performing well in school. Nowadays, I just chuckle when kids in pre-med classes complain about having a two-hour lecture with a 2-hour lab afterward in the evening. That's just one prime example. That's the difference in mentality between us and them: they are soft.

That's the end of my rant.

excellent posts !! :)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say the calculation they are doing is necessarily wrong, it's just how/what you are using it for. As that example shows, giving an average doesn't tell you much about your data set in the terms that we are asking. Think of it this way, there may be a ton of 28's, 29's, and 30's, and a few outliers at the top that drag the average up. The mode is what you want to be looking at, which I don't think they provide anywhere. I would look at it as long as you score a 27+, you have a chance to get in, because you're in the top 40%. Even if you think about reapplicants, you have to consider that the people reapplying probably had a lower then average MCAT, otherwise they would have been accepted the first go around, so the previous year/years (when they took the test) would have had their scores drag the average down, but we don't see that. So reapplicants can't be issue here. One thing to keep in mind, is there is 12 points above the average to a perfect score, and all of those people are getting in. But there isn't an equal weight on the other side of the curve, its all bottom loaded. IE your distribution is shaped like half a parabola. People with a 45 will get in, but people with a 21 aren't getting in (12 points in either direction of the average). Very few 0-26 are accepted, but almost all 33-45 are; which leads to a skewed average when compared to the mode.
I am not using it for anything. :) The whole argument started by wanting a reference to show that the median is 33. That is the only thing that I am arguing, that it actually is that much, not how useful that is.
Btw, you keep referring to 33 as average, it is not, it is a median.
 
Apologies for the argument I initiated, lol.
:)
No worries, this is always a strong driving force:
duty_calls.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Oh that comic is just too true, love it! In reference to this post though, the number being discussed is in reference to the idea of "what are my chances" or at least thats how this started isn't it? (the irony of starting with that first sentence then the second is not lost on me ;) ). And no apologies needed, I don't think anyone is arguing so much as debating the topic, which is healthy and respectful.
 
People here are making basic statistical mistakes. If 2 people were accepted, one getting a 21 and one a perfect 45, you would get an average of 33. If 5 people got a 30.6 and one a 45, the average would still be a 33, and again if someone got a 26,27,28,29,43, and a 45, again, 33. One more time; 28,28,28,28,41,45 = 33 You actually care more about the highest modes when comparing this kinda data, the frequency of each score accepted. Mode can VASTLY differ from average, but statistically it's what you care about the most for the "what's my shot of getting in". Average means almost nothing to you. So the table drmidlife posted I think is a better representation of the question being asked.

Try extrapolating from this data; a 33 puts you in the 90.6 percentile. Roughly 42% of applicants are accepted, with a mode of roughly 26-28. How do you square (not ^2, but rather rationalize) you average score of 33 when only 9.4% of people obtain this score or above yet 42% of people get in.


Now looking at the data a different way, lets assume the 42% accepted is the top 42% (its not, but lets just say for the sake of argument) . That would mean anyone with a 27 or higher would be getting in.
You have some monkey math going on here and in your next post. You are assuming that everybody who takes the MCAT applies to medical school.

It is a true statement that 9.4% of folks who took the MCAT got 33+. It is not a true statement that 9.4% of the applicants got a 33+. That percentage would be much higher. It's closer to a quarter of the applicant pool.

Likewise, if the top 42% of MCAT takers got into medical school, then folks with a 27 would be getting in. But 42% of MCAT takers are not getting in. 42% of applicants are getting in, and their MCAT scores are higher.

That is how we can square (or rationalize) the following three true statements:
(1) only 9.4% of MCAT scores are above 32
(2) only 42% of applicants get accepted
(3) over 50% of students with acceptances have an MCAT above 32
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It doesn't matter. From gonnif's link, the mean for 2013 matriculated med students is about 31. That 33 statistics isn't a good indicator. BTW, the mean MCAT score for matriculated students has been around 31 for the past four years. It's just hard to think that it's going to jump to 33 in 12 months. If I'm gauging my chances of getting into a MD, I would shoot for a score of 30 or higher.
 
Yes it can be tough. Really though stay determined, consistent and do what you have to best you can to make it happen.
 
The way I see it: Getting an acceptance to medical school is all about opening as many doors as possible. Gotta keep your GPA up or you're shut off of some school or even all of them. Score highly on the MCAT for more doors to be open. Lower and you're hurting your chances. ECs need to be at a certain level and having more unique ECs will open more doors. Writing a bad essay could hurt you and a fantastic one will help. It's all about maximizing your chances. If you are deficient in one area it's possible to overcome that with above average numbers in another (to a point).

Is it hard? Yes and for a multitude of reasons. First, most major in a science and you have to keep a high GPA which can be difficult. These majors typically have a lot of study time but also a significant amount of lab/busy work time as well. While keeping that GPA up you know need to find some volunteering opportunities to do in the free time you have. After keeping your GPA up for years then it's time to take the MCAT. Have a 4.0 and work your butt off in class but do poorly on the MCAT? You're not getting in to medical school. If you can survive the stress of all this then you get to apply. Ignoring the 4.0/38+ people, even with good stats it is still a game of statistics. It's hard working so much just for a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Not that I'm representative of most young people or even any young people since I am 25, but there's no way in hell I could afford to shell out tons of cash for MCAT preparation. I do worry that this will disadvantage me greatly. Maybe my financial situation will have improved once I get closer to taking the MCAT, but right now, I wouldn't even be able to afford applying to med schools if I were to start doing so today.

I was the same. I had to make do with bare minimum prep materials, couldn't afford to take the practice tests and once I did apply I could only apply to the 8 schools in my state.
 
I was the same. I had to make do with bare minimum prep materials, couldn't afford to take the practice tests and once I did apply I could only apply to the 8 schools in my state.
Glad to see it worked out for you! I'll probably have to do the same. I have a set of the Kaplan review books that I bought almost a year ago when I wasn't broke, and I don't see myself being able to afford anything else in the near future. I worry that the books won't even be that relevant now with the new MCAT coming out. I've been applying left and right to jobs trying to find something that will bring in enough income to allow me to start saving for the application process, but I'm not having any luck. Not even from restaurants. Guess I really shot myself in the foot when I decided to major in English...or something.
 
Glad to see it worked out for you! I'll probably have to do the same. I have a set of the Kaplan review books that I bought almost a year ago when I wasn't broke, and I don't see myself being able to afford anything else in the near future. I worry that the books won't even be that relevant now with the new MCAT coming out. I've been applying left and right to jobs trying to find something that will bring in enough income to allow me to start saving for the application process, but I'm not having any luck. Not even from restaurants. Guess I really shot myself in the foot when I decided to major in English...or something.
If there's anything I could change I would do anything to be able to afford some of the official practice tests. Those seem to be hugely beneficial and I went into my test blind and I think it really hurt me.
 
If there's anything I could change I would do anything to be able to afford some of the official practice tests. Those seem to be hugely beneficial and I went into my test blind and I think it really hurt me.
You got in, though, unless your status lies!

I'll probably just be able to do the free practice test that's available to everybody. There are practice problems in the Kaplan books as well. Maybe I'll have a stroke of good luck soon and find a job, though. That would be swell.
 
While determination is admired, immaturity is not. It's a sign of maturity to always have a backup plan, because life doesn't always turn out the way we want it.


. I don't have an alternative purpose for being at my school. My entire purpose for being there is to take these classes so that I'll be eligible to apply to med schools. If I don't get into med school, then these classes won't really be a ton of use to me in the future career-wise. Of course, I could consider using them toward a second bachelor's in dietetics or trying to get into PA school or something later, but right now, I don't really have a backup plan to give people because I re-enrolled in school with a very specific purpose.

Stop comparing yourself to other people, and focus on yourself, and your attributes.

I have a friend who was pre-med as an undergrad, and she had a ton of pre-med friends as well. She's now going back to school for accounting. I was talking to her today, and she said that the reason she never applied was that she saw every single one of her friends fail at making it to med school. Her one friend was a microbiology major with a 3.8 GPA, 30 MCAT, thousands of volunteering hours, and experience working in a hospital, and she didn't get in anywhere. Hearing stories like that makes me feel like I'm doing all of this for nothing. If a microbiology student with impressive stats and ECs can't get in, I can see why people think I'm delusional thinking I'm going to get in with my English degree and pretty unimpressive ECs (since I'm getting a late start on them and don't have much time given that I work full-time.)

No, it's not. Your GPA is outstanding. If you're MCAT is >30, then you're competitive for MD programs. Even with a mediocre MCAT you're fine for some DO programs. You've got a start on ECs, which are necessary. If you have some interesting ones, and don't appear like a cookie cutter candidate, then you should be getting some IIs. Keep in mind that this whole process is a marathon, not a sprint.



Is it really as near impossible to get into med school as everyone outside of SDN seems to think? I thought I would stand a pretty fair chance with my 3.92 undergrad GPA as long as I did well in my pre-reqs, scored well on the MCAT, and got in at least some shadowing hours and 100 or 200 volunteering hours. It seems like a lot of people who are much more competitive than me don't make it, though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
At least 25-50% of those apps are from people who have no business applying to medical schools. I see the same nonsense in apps for Faculty jobs applicants.

I don't have a source to back this up, but I heard that this year there were 49,300 applications for 19,000 seats (allopathic). It's pretty damn hard, but nowhere near impossible.
 
Not that I'm representative of most young people or even any young people since I am 25, but there's no way in hell I could afford to shell out tons of cash for MCAT preparation. I do worry that this will disadvantage me greatly. Maybe my financial situation will have improved once I get closer to taking the MCAT, but right now, I wouldn't even be able to afford applying to med schools if I were to start doing so today.


Don't you have a credit card?
 
I'm curious about the MCAT median for accepted applicants from 2012. From the mean, the only difference between 2012-2013 is .1. It's fishy if the median jumps by 2 whole points while the mean increases by only .1.

I'm not buying the hype that 33 is the new average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm curious about the MCAT median for accepted applicants from 2012. From the mean, the only difference between 2012-2013 is .1. It's fishy if the median jumps by 2 whole points while the mean increases by only .1.

I'm not buying the hype that 33 is the new average.
Did the median jump by two points? I don't have access to last year's MSAR but I thought it was 32 last year, and 33 this year. By definition, the median has to jump by whole points, because the underlying score jumps by whole points.

I think people are really getting confused by this whole mean / median thing. In simple terms, the mean is the average, and it is thrown off by extreme outliers. If you have a lot if normal incomes and one Bill Gates, then the average income is $700,000 per year. But that is a meaningless measurement because everybody except bill gates is below average. The median income would still be a normal expected $40K and this is much more representative of what ordinary income is. The mean was greater than the median.

Now look at MCAT scores. The mean (the bogus misleading measurement) is less than the median (the real measurement of what is normal and expected). What does this indicate? It's the opposite of my income scenario. Now the normal is way up high, with one or two weirdos that have an absurdly low score but with a special circumstance.

The MCAT scores are more like 34 33 33 33 33 33 10 (dad is on the admission committee) 33 33 33. Sure the average MCAT might be 31, but look at the data again... most accepted students are above average because the average is a meaningless and misleading measurement. The median measurement, which is still 33, gives you a far better picture of what is really happening. Accepted students are clustering around 33, with a few crazy low scores taken in due to extenuating circumstances.

Ask yourself: do you want to try and get in with an average 31, when the vast majority of acceptees are scoring 33 and higher? That is what the more meaningful and more useful median is trying to tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Did the median jump by two points? I don't have access to last year's MSAR but I thought it was 32 last year, and 33 this year. By definition, the median has to jump by whole points, because the underlying score jumps by whole points.

I think people are really getting confused by this whole mean / median thing. In simple terms, the mean is the average, and it is thrown off by extreme outliers. If you have a lot if normal incomes and one Bill Gates, then the average income is $700,000 per year. But that is a meaningless measurement because everybody except bill gates is below average. The median income would still be a normal expected $40K and this is much more representative of what ordinary income is. The mean was greater than the median.

Now look at MCAT scores. The mean (the bogus misleading measurement) is less than the median (the real measurement of what is normal and expected). What does this indicate? It's the opposite of my income scenario. Now the normal is way up high, with one or two weirdos that have an absurdly low score but with a special circumstance.

In any statistical study, people normally use the mean as the center of the distribution, not the median. I would like to know a certified link saying that the mean is a bogus indicator. I would like to know your definition of normal. Finally, in a statistical study with an ample sample size, the effect of outliers are minimalized. If the mean is a bogus indicator, why do medical schools use the mean for their class profile instead of the median.
The MCAT scores are more like 34 33 33 33 33 33 10 (dad is on the admission committee) 33 33 33.
The adcom isn't accepting that kid with the MCAT of 10. Let's be real here. The mean was based on data of matriculated students with a sample size of 20,000.

Sure the average MCAT might be 31, but look at the data again... most accepted students are above average because the average is a meaningless and misleading measurement. The median measurement, which is still 33, gives you a far better picture of what is really happening. Accepted students are clustering around 33, with a few crazy low scores taken in due to extenuating circumstances.

Why is the mean an invalid indicator? If it's useless, why do medical schools use the mean as a measurement for their class instead of the median? Your example of Bill Gates is invalid because the top range of the MCAT is limited to 44-45. Nobody can score 120 or higher. An outlier of 10-20 will not likely be in the sample because it's already screened out based on the fact that the data is based on matriculated applicants.

Most accepted students are above average in the following categories: (1) cgpa; (2) sgpa; (3) ECs; (4) essays; (5) interview.

Ask yourself: do you want to try and get in with an average 31, when the vast majority of acceptees are scoring 33 and higher? That is what the more meaningful and more useful median is trying to tell you.

I would say that if your MCAT score is within 1 standard deviation of the mean. You are competitive for that one factor. Like I have said before, you neeed to be above average overall in your entire package, consisting of other factors than just your lone MCAT score.
 
I am trying to follow your data. where are you getting 33 as the new average? what data are you looking at?

Technically, I don't mean 33 as the new mean. However, there seems to be a lot of posts here insinuating that you need at least a 33 MCAT score to be an average applicant. That seems to be counterintuitive based on other statistical data.
 
In any statistical study, people normally use the mean as the center of the distribution, not the median. I would like to know a certified link saying that the mean is a bogus indicator. I would like to know your definition of normal. Finally, in a statistical study with an ample sample size, the effect of outliers are minimalized. If the mean is a bogus indicator, why do medical schools use the mean for their class profile instead of the median.

Medians can be preferred as a measure of central tendency when the data is non-normally distributed. MCAT scores for all test takers are normally distributed but MCAT scorse for acceptees are somewhat non-normally distributed because of people who take the MCAT and do not apply and the extreme rareness of scores above 40. This non-normative distribution is why the mean and median are different (in a normally distributed sample they are the same). Thus the average/mean is reduced in value as the measure of central tendency when evaluating an individual applicant's competitiveness.

"average" "mean" and "median" have precise mathematical definitions. I think some of the problems here are arising from people using 'average' in the colloquial sense, where it means "typical". Yes, the average MCAT score for an acceptee is still around 31 according to the math. But the median being at 33 shows that the typical applicant now has a score in the 32-34 range. Interpret that how you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think the MCAT is becoming more difficult because people are cracking it and there is rampant grade inflation throughout most of the USA. So the MCAT is becoming tougher otherwise it'd be extremely difficult to differentiate applicants. So if today's 27 is yesterday's 31, it only means that people who finally do get into medical school by the skin of their teeth are actually cut out for it academically. The expansion of DO schools was worrying to me until I noticed that the MCAT seems to be getting more difficult (see the April 5 2014 MCAT thread). If I have to bust my a$$ to get a 27 and I get into a DO school rather than my state MD, I'll be thrilled.

For most of us who spend hours on SDN: we're neurotic enough to ensure we make the grade. Don't worry, everyone! It's amazing how many poor quality applicants apply to medical school. One of my friends was freaking out because she couldn't get in after 3 attempts and she had all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why this was happening to her. It turns out she had no E.Cs and applied to 3 schools. She thought she was pushing herself to apply to 9 schools the last time because it was "triple the amount I applied for to get into college!" Then there was a girl who got angry with me because I told her to get a DO "and become a chiropractor."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You have some monkey math going on here and in your next post. You are assuming that everybody who takes the MCAT applies to medical school.

It is a true statement that 9.4% of folks who took the MCAT got 33+. It is not a true statement that 9.4% of the applicants got a 33+. That percentage would be much higher. It's closer to a quarter of the applicant pool.

Likewise, if the top 42% of MCAT takers got into medical school, then folks with a 27 would be getting in. But 42% of MCAT takers are not getting in. 42% of applicants are getting in, and their MCAT scores are higher.

That is how we can square (or rationalize) the following three true statements:
(1) only 9.4% of MCAT scores are above 32
(2) only 42% of applicants get accepted
(3) over 50% of students with acceptances have an MCAT above 32

It's actually in the middle of both our statements.

94907 (published MCAT takers in 2013) * .094=8,921 students in 2013 with a 33+ MCAT. 48014 / 8921 = 18.5%. Now lets assume that every single person with a 33+ gets accepted (which cancels out the need to think about previous years because it would leave no applicants to reapply the following year. If a third didn't get in, you would assume a third next year didn't get in and would be replaced by the third that didn't get in the previous year), that still leaves 58% of your applicants below a 33+. Again, mean and median do NOT show you what we are looking for, simply because it's safe to assume that most people with a 45 will get in, but people with a 21 will not. If you have a crap ton of scores around 33, with lots of outliers up to 45, but almost no outliers below, it artificially inflates your median. People with <26 getting accepted are rare, people with 40 getting accepted is almost a sure thing
 
It's actually in the middle of both our statements.

94907 (published MCAT takers in 2013) * .094=8,921 students in 2013 with a 33+ MCAT. 48014 / 8921 = 18.5%. Now lets assume that every single person with a 33+ gets accepted (which cancels out the need to think about previous years because it would leave no applicants to reapply the following year. If a third didn't get in, you would assume a third next year didn't get in and would be replaced by the third that didn't get in the previous year), that still leaves 58% of your applicants below a 33+. Again, mean and median do NOT show you what we are looking for, simply because it's safe to assume that most people with a 45 will get in, but people with a 21 will not. If you have a crap ton of scores around 33, with lots of outliers up to 45, but almost no outliers below, it artificially inflates your median. People with <26 getting accepted are rare, people with 40 getting accepted is almost a sure thing

12.8%, not 9.4%, got a 33 or higher on the MCAT in 2013. Check the fine print on the right hand side of the AAMC table.
 
Time to resurrect this thread. Despite the email that I got from AAMC saying that the 33 median does not double count applicants with more than one acceptance, here is what I noticed in the MSAR today:

"National Median refers to data derived by including MCAT scores from all accepted applications and includes duplicate scores from individuals with multiple acceptances. The national median for each individual test section remains identical when calculated using duplicate scores or a single record from an accepted applicant, except in the case of the national median for the Total MCAT Score, which is 31 when derived using unduplicated scores."

So after all, the sky is not falling and the median MCAT is still 31...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Top