Is MCAT prep about hours put in or does it have to do with innate ability?

[deleted1085158]

Assuming you understand how to study for the MCAT and that it is not a content-only test, does your score correlate to the hours that you put in, let's say 500 minimum, or even if you invest 500-800 hours, is it possible for people just not to be able to score well because a lack of some innate ability?

Will everyone that puts in a solid 500-800 hours at least easily get to the 50th percentile guaranteed?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JimKimSlim]

It’s not about hours you put it. I would say 30% innate ability and 70% quality studying. The innate ability matters during CARS and partially P/S. But the other 70% is how you study. I spent less than 500 hours, but I studied pretty efficiently with a rigid schedule and got a 520. Interestingly, a good friend of mine barely studied for a month and got a 518 on his first try, so how you prep for MCAT is unique by person.

 

[Mr.Blackdoc.5]

to build on what Jim said, I do actually think you can guarantee a 520+ if you put the time in. I strongly believe anyone can get a 132 on the c/p and b/b sections and 130 on p/s if they study the right way. Im a non trad who took the exam four years after my last college science close and got a 522 (132/127/132/131) using a very systematic approach. From the get go I had planned to prioritize 132s on c/p, b/b and p/s because I figured you could brute force those, and I was almost able to accomplish that if it weren’t for p/s becoming more like a cars v2.

 

[lumya]

I think it's definitely a mix. A lot of the MCAT is reading comprehension which while it's not really an "innate" ability, some people grew up liking to read/reading more books, which I think definitely helps. However, for someone who's not a great at reading comprehension, putting in the hours definitely helps you improve this skill.

 

[deleted1085158]

It’s not about hours you put it. I would say 30% innate ability and 70% quality studying. The innate ability matters during CARS and partially P/S. But the other 70% is how you study. I spent less than 500 hours, but I studied pretty efficiently with a rigid schedule and got a 520. Interestingly, a good friend of mine barely studied for a month and got a 518 on his first try, so how you prep for MCAT is unique by person.

Can you tell me how you studied? Did you use a course or did you study by yourself?

My plan is to do content review for three months and then spend the next three months doing FL's and a test bank.

 

[deleted1066189]

let's say 500 minimum

I believe 300 is the average minimum. I got a 513 with approximately 350 hours, and some of that was greasing my wheels a bit, plus lacking knowledge in B/B, Physics, and P/S. I had an okay CARS diagnostic (127) so I didn't put much time into that section.

Of course, YMMV, especially based on your goal score and where your CARS diagnostic is.

 

[deleted1085158]

I believe 300 is the average minimum. I got a 513 with approximately 350 hours, and some of that was greasing my wheels a bit, plus lacking knowledge in B/B, Physics, and P/S. I had an okay CARS diagnostic (127) so I didn't put much time into that section.

Of course, YMMV, especially based on your goal score and where your CARS diagnostic is.

Do you think 300 hours is fine for people who are not doing content prep? I figure that I would be "studying" for the MCAT actively for 300 hours or so but another 300 would be solely for content prep as I have been out of school for a few years now.

 

[Lawpy]

Assuming you understand how to study for the MCAT and that it is not a content-only test, does your score correlate to the hours that you put in, let's say 500 minimum, or even if you invest 500-800 hours, is it possible for people just not to be able to score well because a lack of some innate ability?

Will everyone that puts in a solid 500-800 hours at least easily get to the 50th percentile guaranteed?

I don't even think hours even matters. There are people who can cram in a couple of weeks and smash a 520+. There are others who need to study full time for months just to break 500.

 

[JimKimSlim]

Can you tell me how you studied? Did you use a course or did you study by yourself?

My plan is to do content review for three months and then spend the next three months doing FL's and a test bank.

I did something similar to what you are planning to do. Content review for 2 months mixed with practice problems and practice tests for the rest. For practice problems, start with 3rd party to practice timing, but don’t worry too much about your score. About 5-6 weeks before your exam, do AAMC section banks, CARS Qpacks, and FL’s. For third party, I used Altius but you gotta pick your poison when it comes to third party since nothing out there is as good as AAMC materials IMO.

 

[acstylin]

I probably put in close to 500 hours. My first practice was 492 and the real deal was 514. You can see that a lack of innate ability can be overcome by hard work.

 

[deleted1085158]

I probably put in close to 500 hours. My first practice was 492 and the real deal was 514. You can see that a lack of innate ability can be overcome by hard work.

Good to know. Just curious but what does 500 hours feel like? Were you burnt out by the test or did you just get into a rhythm and that carried over to test day?

 

[Blueprint Med School]

It's a different test than it used to be. Back in my day *bones creak* you could pull up your bootstraps and pretty much outwork the exam. With the 2015 revision, it shifted it towards critical thinking, research, and application. It still and always will reward hard work, but its certainly more of a expert skill than it was in the past.

David D, MD - USMLE and MCAT Tutor
Med School Tutors

 

[deleted1085158]

It's a different test than it used to be. Back in my day *bones creak* you could pull up your bootstraps and pretty much outwork the exam. With the 2015 revision, it shifted it towards critical thinking, research, and application. It still and always will reward hard work, but its certainly more of a expert skill than it was in the past.

David D, MD - USMLE and MCAT Tutor
Med School Tutors

Very interesting. Most of the people that are in my age range took the old MCAT so I guess I should steer clear of their advice now.

 

[acstylin]

Good to know. Just curious but what does 500 hours feel like? Were you burnt out by the test or did you just get into a rhythm and that carried over to test day?

It sucked. I was fried after the test. I studied for about 5 months or so. The first couple were casual with just a few hours per day on most days. I skipped several days. Then 2 more months of heavy dedicated study for 8-10 per day. Then 1 month of brutal 6 day per week with 10 hour days. As I was walking out of the test, I had no idea if I was getting a 502 or 522 but I’m happy with result.

 

[KnightDoc]

I don't even think hours even matters. There are people who can cram in a couple of weeks and smash a 520+. There are others who need to study full time for months just to break 500.

This^^^^. It's really not the answer you are looking for, but the answer is, it depends on you. The need for content review totally depends on the baseline knowledge you are starting with, and the number of hours you need totally depends on how good you are and what your target score is.

That said, the only constant is that the more time you put into practicing, the better you will do on the real thing. We have no way to know whether you will ever be able to hit your target, or how many hours you will need to get there. The good news is that you will know as you work through all the resources and finally see what your AAMC FL scores look like. Good luck!!!

 

[FrameshiftAndrew]

Assuming you understand how to study for the MCAT and that it is not a content-only test, does your score correlate to the hours that you put in, let's say 500 minimum, or even if you invest 500-800 hours, is it possible for people just not to be able to score well because a lack of some innate ability?

Will everyone that puts in a solid 500-800 hours at least easily get to the 50th percentile guaranteed?

I hesitate to say that anything is guaranteed, much less easy, but if (1) you're ready for the MCAT in the sense of having completed all (or almost all of your prereqs), (2) you're in a reasonable position to study for the MCAT in terms of having enough available time in your life for a structured, consistent study plan that involves 500-800 hours, and (3) you study the MCAT effectively (which could be a whole conversation in its own right, but primarily I mean having an appropriate focus on learning the test and learning from practice), you should proceed with confidence that you can achieve a reasonable score.

 

[efle]

Are people really out here studying 300-500 hours for the MCAT??? That's similar to what most people spend on their USMLE Step 1 dedicated!

MCAT is much more about aptitude/ability. That's why it has a nice narrow confidence interval, and someone can do a few weeks of light review and then knock it out of the park (like top few percent). Its also why you will see some people who study up and take it several times with stagnant scores. Usually, after a small amount of content review, people are limited by their test-taking.

USMLE however switches to being more about pattern recognition and knowledge. It has a massive confidence band, many studies have shown the best way to prepare is to do thousands upon thousands of practice questions, and most people do tens or hundreds of thousands of flashcards to try and score in the top quartile. No matter how good your test-taking aptitude is, you will not land in the upper deciles without an encyclopedic amount of UFAPS content knowledge too, which is why many students start flashcarding 12+ months out.

 

[deleted1085158]

Are people really out here studying 300-500 hours for the MCAT??? That's similar to what most people spend on their USMLE Step 1 dedicated!

MCAT is much more about aptitude/ability. That's why it has a nice narrow confidence interval, and someone can do a few weeks of light review and then knock it out of the park (like top few percent). Its also why you will see some people who study up and take it several times with stagnant scores. Usually, after a small amount of content review, people are limited by their test-taking.

USMLE however switches to being more about pattern recognition and knowledge. It has a massive confidence band, many studies have shown the best way to prepare is to do thousands upon thousands of practice questions, and most people do tens or hundreds of thousands of flashcards to try and score in the top quartile. No matter how good your test-taking aptitude is, you will not land in the upper deciles without an encyclopedic amount of UFAPS content knowledge too, which is why many students start flashcarding 12+ months out.

I'm personally taking the approach of spending 2-3 months on content review alone BEFORE I actually do an FL. I don't know how many hours that would come up to but I anticipate the real studying will be around another 2-3 months. The goal in those last 2-3 months is to study smartly and not passively.

 

[efle]

I'm personally taking the approach of spending 2-3 months on content review alone BEFORE I actually do an FL. I don't know how many hours that would come up to but I anticipate the real studying will be around another 2-3 months. The goal in those last 2-3 months is to study smartly and not passively.

Diminishing returns my dude. If 2 months isn't enough time to get your score somewhere comfortable, 6 months likely won't help. You'll see what I mean when you start taking practice exams, it's very very rare that you get a question wrong because of forgetting some obscure fact. It's mostly all there for you in the passages.

 

[deleted1085158]

Diminishing returns my dude. If 2 months isn't enough time to get your score somewhere comfortable, 6 months likely won't help. You'll see what I mean when you start taking practice exams, it's very very rare that you get a question wrong because of forgetting some obscure fact. It's mostly all there for you in the passages.

Do you suggest not doing content review? What do you recommend someone do during 2 months of studying?

 

[efle]

Do you suggest not doing content review? What do you recommend someone do during 2 months of studying?

It makes sense to do some content review, just not months of it followed by months of practice blocks. 8 weeks total should be plenty of time to work through a review book set with lots of practice questions and FLs mixed in. The way I studied was to read on a subject and then do questions about it, and then once you're done with most of the book set you can mix in FL practice days 2-3 times per week in the final couple weeks.

 

[Lawpy]

It makes sense to do some content review, just not months of it followed by months of practice blocks. 8 weeks total should be plenty of time to work through a review book set with lots of practice questions and FLs mixed in. The way I studied was to read on a subject and then do questions about it, and then once you're done with most of the book set you can mix in FL practice days 2-3 times per week in the final couple weeks.

I agree but it's not a good strategy for those who forgot a lot of stuff. There really isn't one specific strategy to do well.

 

[efle]

I agree but it's not a good strategy for those who forgot a lot of stuff. There really isn't one specific strategy to do well.

Nobody does poorly on the MCAT because they suddenly forget lots of stuff. All you really need to know is like 1 page worth of equations and such. It's a passage-based aptitude test like the LSAT, not a massive content knowledge check like the USMLE or Bar exams.

 

[deleted1085158]

I agree but it's not a good strategy for those who forgot a lot of stuff. There really isn't one specific strategy to do well.

My reasoning for wanting to take a little longer on content review is because I have been out of class for a few years now. It's all confusing. I feel that my approach is well-rounded but I guess I'll only know when I see the score.

 

[Lawpy]

Nobody does poorly on the MCAT because they suddenly forget lots of stuff. All you really need to know is like 1 page worth of equations and such. It's a passage-based aptitude test like the LSAT, not a massive content knowledge check like the USMLE or Bar exams.

How do you explain those with <500? I dont think reasoning alone is to be blamed. Massive content review gaps are a problem

 

[efle]

How do you explain those with <500? I dont think reasoning alone is to be blamed. Massive content review gaps are a problem

I mean, what do you think places people in the bottom 50% of something like the SAT? Or LSAT? Or GRE quant? Or an IQ curve? The MCAT has some content knowledge questions but it's mostly g-loaded like all those others.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean, what do you think places people in the bottom 50% of something like the SAT? Or LSAT? Or GRE quant? Or an IQ curve? The MCAT has some content knowledge questions but it's mostly g-loaded like all those others.

MCAT is more content based than all those though. To get below 500 means a lot of content related questions are missed.

 

[HKSZYU]

I mean, what do you think places people in the bottom 50% of something like the SAT? Or LSAT? Or GRE quant? Or an IQ curve? The MCAT has some content knowledge questions but it's mostly g-loaded like all those others.

Nobody does poorly on the MCAT because they suddenly forget lots of stuff. All you really need to know is like 1 page worth of equations and such. It's a passage-based aptitude test like the LSAT, not a massive content knowledge check like the USMLE or Bar exams.

I'm a non-trad, and I absolutely would have done poorly on the MCAT because I forgot lots of stuff. Yes, the MCAT is passage-based, but you need knowledge to put those passages into context.

I've taken all the exams you listed. MCAT is exponentially more content-driven than those other exams. An LSAT passage is literally just about understanding what you're reading. For an MCAT passage, you still need that a foundational (and occasionally an advanced) level of understanding of the topic you're reading about if you want to score well.

To OP, I was someone who'd been out of school for a while and forgot most things from my premed courses. I took about a month and a half to do organized content review, then about a month and a half of question banks and practice tests. Altogether I probably studied about 300-400 hours.

There's no golden bullet for how many hours you need or how much of it needs to be content review. If you took your pre-med courses recently, did well in them, and feel like you retained the knowledge, perhaps you don't need much content review, and you can briefly brush up on things that you've forgotten. If you don't feel as comfy on the content, then maybe you need a bit more intensive review.

 

[efle]

I'm a non-trad, and I absolutely would have done poorly on the MCAT because I forgot lots of stuff. Yes, the MCAT is passage-based, but you need knowledge to put those passages into context.

I've taken all the exams you listed. MCAT is exponentially more content-driven than those other exams. An LSAT passage is literally just about understanding what you're reading. For an MCAT passage, you still need that a foundational (and occasionally an advanced) level of understanding of the topic you're reading about if you want to score well.

To OP, I was someone who'd been out of school for a while and forgot most things from my premed courses. I took about a month and a half to do organized content review, then about a month and a half of question banks and practice tests. Altogether I probably studied about 300-400 hours.

There's no golden bullet for how many hours you need or how much of it needs to be content review. If you took your pre-med courses recently, did well in them, and feel like you retained the knowledge, perhaps you don't need much content review, and you can briefly brush up on things that you've forgotten. If you don't feel as comfy on the content, then maybe you need a bit more intensive review.

This is my mistake I assumed we were talking about the usual MCAT test taker who is a current college student that recently finished taking the prereq series. That's why most people only need a few weeks of reviewing before they test. Someone trying to re-learn all of their college science classes and then study for the MCAT is going to need longer.

What's the total duration/hours of the popular MCAT prep courses like from Princeton and Kaplan? 4-6 weeks?

I also didn't know dentists took the MCAT!

 

[natalux]

I mean, what do you think places people in the bottom 50% of something like the SAT? Or LSAT? Or GRE quant? Or an IQ curve? The MCAT has some content knowledge questions but it's mostly g-loaded like all those others.

I agree with you to some extent based on my own experience studying. Of course a minimum base of content knowledge is necessary to do well, but I think once you establish that knowledge, the rest is about natural aptitude (whatever that means) and ability to read and think critically about information-dense passages. However I do think that the difference between a great score (515ish) and a stellar score (520+) is probably determined by the extent of your knowledge of discrete information; there were many questions I was missing in my early practice just because I hadn't memorized the specifics of a Krebs cycle or a certain physics equation or whatever.

 

[Mr.Blackdoc.5]

I was four years out when I took the exam and had to relearn everything from scratch. I did so by re-reading relevant chapters from college textbooks, then doing doing tons of practice problems (TBR, Uworld, Khan) as well as the consensus hardest third-party full-length exams (EK, NS) in addition to all the AAMC material (section bank x2). Thoroughly reviewing my answers and using each wrong question as an opportunity to learn/improve helped me guarantee 132 on b/b and c/p as well as 131 on p/s. I probably put thousands of hours of prep in but i felt it was a necessity given that my gpa was far below the average MD matriculants.

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

Eh it’s kinda both. I was always pretty good at standardized test taking and it 100% helped me get a 130 on CARS and PS. On the other hand I didn’t exactly do well in undergrad so getting decent scores on CP and BB was all about studying.

Imho MCAT is more of a “can this person study for a very important exam with overwhelming amount of content effectively?” exam rather then an IQ test.

 

[efle]

Imho MCAT is more of a “can this person study for a very important exam with overwhelming amount of content effectively?” exam rather then an IQ test.

Oh man just wait for the USMLE!!!

I did take the old exam. All you needed back in my day was ~6 weeks to do either a review course or read a set of books. There were only a handful of discrete knowledge based questions, and maybe 1 page worth of equations to know. Maybe it changed significantly with the update.

Although, you'll notice there are many people out there who can briefly review and score in the top few percent, and many people out there who study up multiple times and consistently get non-competitive scores. I guess you could make up a logic there, like that a majority of college premeds don't know how to study, but then you'd still have to explain the narrow retest interval and why so many struggle to improve by studying more. As comparison for a knowledge based exam, the USMLE has massive intervals (16 point interval to contain 65% confidence) and doing more practice questions is the best predictor of scoring higher.

Compare that to MCAT. Brief search just turned up this small study - no significant MCAT correlation to GPA, major, etc but very significant correlations to SAT. Their value for SAT total to MCAT total was 0.45, which is quite good in the field of psychometrics; for comparison SAT verbal to MCAT verbal was 0.60 and that's about the highest you can find in studies like this.

It's not an IQ test in that it doesn't only test for g, but it's much more a passage based aptitude test than it is a content knowledge check.

Edit:

To throw a couple more sources in there:

1993 academic medicine, Montague and Frei - SAT was highest predictor of MCAT explaining 41% of variance (for comparison, all other model components including GPA collectively explained only 21% of variance)

1987 journal ntl med assc, Carmichael et al - SAT highest predictor explaining 57% of variance

So this has been a durable finding for decades!

 

[Lawpy]

Oh man just wait for the USMLE!!!

I did take the old exam. All you needed back in my day was ~6 weeks to do either a review course or read a set of books. There were only a handful of discrete knowledge based questions, and maybe 1 page worth of equations to know. Maybe it changed significantly with the update.

Although, you'll notice there are many people out there who can briefly review and score in the top few percent, and many people out there who study up multiple times and consistently get non-competitive scores. I guess you could make up a logic there, like that a majority of college premeds don't know how to study, but then you'd still have to explain the narrow retest interval and why so many struggle to improve by studying more. As comparison for a knowledge based exam, the USMLE has massive intervals (16 point interval to contain 65% confidence) and doing more practice questions is the best predictor of scoring higher.

Compare that to MCAT. Brief search just turned up this small study - no significant MCAT correlation to GPA, major, etc but very significant correlations to SAT. Their value for SAT total to MCAT total was 0.45, which is quite good in the field of psychometrics; for comparison SAT verbal to MCAT verbal was 0.60 and that's about the highest you can find in studies like this.

It's not an IQ test in that it doesn't only test for g, but it's much more a passage based aptitude test than it is a content knowledge check.

Edit:

To throw a couple more sources in there:

1993 academic medicine, Montague and Frei - SAT was highest predictor of MCAT explaining 41% of variance (for comparison, all other model components including GPA collectively explained only 21% of variance)

1987 journal ntl med assc, Carmichael et al - SAT highest predictor explaining 57% of variance

So this has been a durable finding for decades!

This i agree. The MCAT = content + reasoning/test taking. Yes not everyone can break 510 even with months to years of prep. And others can smash a 520+ with a couple of weeks of light prep. What i still claim is getting below 500 = massive gaps in content knowledge playing a major role as opposed to having very bad reasoning skills

 

[efle]

This i agree. The MCAT = content + reasoning/test taking. Yes not everyone can break 510 even with months to years of prep. And others can smash a 520+ with a couple of weeks of light prep. What i still claim is getting below 500 = massive gaps in content knowledge playing a major role as opposed to having very bad reasoning skills

Idk man. Look at the AMCAS grids for GPA and MCAT. There are lots of people with fantastic 3.8+ GPAs (which I would interpret as being studious and learning the content of their courses well) who then score mediocre or poor MCATs. There are also those people every year with weaker GPAs who review for a few weeks and then land 95th+ percentile scores. And of course all the countless posts online from people who need advice because they did all the established content review methods and are still scoring poorly.

That's not a pattern you'd see from a test that is primarily about massive content knowledge

 

[Lawpy]

Idk man. Look at the AMCAS grids for GPA and MCAT. There are lots of people with fantastic 3.8+ GPAs (which I would interpret as being studious and learning the content of their courses well) who then score mediocre or poor MCATs. There are also those people every year with weaker GPAs who review for a few weeks and then land 95th+ percentile scores. And of course all the countless posts online from people who need advice because they did all the established content review methods and are still scoring poorly.

That's not a pattern you'd see from a test that is primarily about massive content knowledge

There's too many things to account for though. Grade inflation, fluff classes, didn't study properly etc. At least someone with a 3.3 from a heavily grade deflating school is forced to learn to study properly to avoid failing out. The people with sub 500 but 3.8+ might've gone to heavily grade inflated schools and winged the MCAT. Or maybe they actually don't know the content they claim to have studied.

 

[deleted1085158]

There's too many things to account for though. Grade inflation, fluff classes, didn't study properly etc. At least someone with a 3.3 from a heavily grade deflating school is forced to learn to study properly to avoid failing out. The people with sub 500 but 3.8+ might've gone to heavily grade inflated schools and winged the MCAT. Or maybe they actually don't know the content they claim to have studied.

I agree, there are a lot of factors to consider when evaluating GPA. I kinda believe that the MCAT is the more important component of the medical school admissions process. I can't prove that however but everybody I know in the 75th percentile or better seems to get interviews.

 

[efle]

There's too many things to account for though. Grade inflation, fluff classes, didn't study properly etc. At least someone with a 3.3 from a heavily grade deflating school is forced to learn to study properly to avoid failing out. The people with sub 500 but 3.8+ might've gone to heavily grade inflated schools and winged the MCAT. Or maybe they actually don't know the content they claim to have studied.

This is an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to avoid the idea that the MCAT rewards aptitude over studiousness. Especially given the studies above where SAT is consistently the best predictor by a wide margin. I guess you can tell yourself that thousands of premeds are forgetting or never learning the material they got A grades in, but viewing the test as g-loaded fits the overall picture much better to me.

By the way, they score the test like an aptitude exam. Knowledge check tests like the USMLEs or Bar are criterion-referenced. Aptitude tests like the SAT/ACT, LSAT, and MCAT are norm-referenced. They are choosing not to score you against a content checklist, and are instead scoring you based on your abilities compared to peers.

 

[Lawpy]

This is an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to avoid the idea that the MCAT rewards aptitude over studiousness. Especially given the studies above where SAT is consistently the best predictor by a wide margin. I guess you can tell yourself that thousands of premeds are forgetting or never learning the material they got A grades in, but viewing the test as g-loaded fits the overall picture much better to me.

By the way, they score the test like an aptitude exam. Knowledge check tests like the USMLEs or Bar are criterion-referenced. Aptitude tests like the SAT/ACT, LSAT, and MCAT are norm-referenced. They are choosing not to score you against a content checklist, and are instead scoring you based on your abilities compared to peers.

I think the g loading happens more heavily in the upper percentile range. Like 510+ or so. 500-510 = test taking + content. Below 500 = massive content deficiency. Above 510 = test taking plays a major role.

I will say flashcarding for MCAT is a bad idea but flashcards are huge for Steps

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

As someone with a sub 3.2 science GPA and a 517 I found the MCAT a far different type of challenge compared to college courses at least. And flashcards are kind of a mixed bag. I more or less think that doing anything but flashcards and uworld/aamc practice for PS is a waste of time.

 

[efle]

As someone with a sub 3.2 science GPA and a 517 I found the MCAT a far different type of challenge compared to college courses at least. And flashcards are kind of a mixed bag. I more or less think that doing anything but flashcards and uworld/aamc practice for PS is a waste of time.

Let me guess you studied something like engineering, compsci, math, physics, chemistry? You're a case in point, you dropped a top 5% MCAT score meanwhile thousands of straight A bio majors struggle to get a competitive score. Reasoning > studiousness.

 

[deleted1085158]

Let me guess you studied something like engineering, compsci, math, physics, chemistry? You're a case in point, you dropped a top 5% MCAT score meanwhile thousands of straight A bio majors struggle to get a competitive score. Reasoning > studiousness.

That's not a strong argument. Just because you are a bio major does not mean you are supposed to do well on the MCAT. I'm sure if those same bio majors took some time off just to study for the MCAT that their scores would be higher than those who study so hard during undergrad that they don't have enough time to study for the MCAT.

 

[efle]

That's not a strong argument. Just because you are a bio major does not mean you are supposed to do well on the MCAT. I'm sure if those same bio majors took some time off just to study for the MCAT that their scores would be higher than those who study so hard during undergrad that they don't have enough time to study for the MCAT.

If the MCAT was really about "massive content knowledge" then you would definitely expect someone who spent all their class time on bio topics to have an edge. Both the content itself and the study methods (lots of memorization) should be what leads to a better MCAT, supposedly.

I'm on the other side. I see something like that math/stats majors have a higher average MCAT than bio majors, and it makes complete sense to me. But that's because I think it's a test of reasoning > recall.

 

[deleted1085158]

If the MCAT was really about "massive content knowledge" then you would definitely expect someone who spent all their class time on bio topics to have an edge. Both the content itself and the study methods (lots of memorization) should be what leads to a better MCAT, supposedly.

I'm on the other side. I see something like that math/stats majors have a higher average MCAT than bio majors, and it makes complete sense to me. But that's because I think it's a test of reasoning > recall.

I don't doubt that innate ability plays some role in a high or very high score but I think what I am trying to figure out is if there is some correlation between at least 500 to maybe even 1000 hours of quality MCAT studying and being able to get in a score range where you could at least be successful in getting into a DO program or some type of bridge program that would lead to medical school...as opposed to studying ineffectively and getting a score that takes you out of the running for a career in medicine.

I might see things differently but a doctor is a doctor. PA is not a doctor. I think you can become a doctor with a 505 or better MCAT even if that takes you to an MS to DO bridge.

I see your point but I don't think you could ever prove that. I mean how would you prove that? You can only infer.

 

[Lawpy]

Let me guess you studied something like engineering, compsci, math, physics, chemistry? You're a case in point, you dropped a top 5% MCAT score meanwhile thousands of straight A bio majors struggle to get a competitive score. Reasoning > studiousness.

That's because bio majors usually study by memorizing a flood of stuff and treat the MCAT like a memorizing test.

I guess if you're arguing memorizing = studiousness, i can see why it's difficult to get anywhere close to 510. But 500? Idk i'm blaming it on serious gaps in knowledge

 

[efle]

I see your point but I don't think you could ever prove that. I mean how would you prove that? You can only infer.

Showing across several decades that SAT is the best predictor of MCAT is about as close as we will get I think. Then again, most knowledge is inferred. We've technically never proven that smoking causes lung cancer in humans. But if you get asked about it on your MCAT, the answer will be yes.

I don't doubt that innate ability plays some role in a high or very high score but I think what I am trying to figure out is if there is some correlation between at least 500 to maybe even 1000 hours of quality MCAT studying and being able to get in a score range where you could at least be successful in getting into a DO program or some type of bridge program that would lead to medical school...as opposed to studying ineffectively and getting a score that takes you out of the running for a career in medicine.

I might see things differently but a doctor is a doctor. PA is not a doctor. I think you can become a doctor with a 505 or better MCAT even if that takes you to an MS to DO bridge.

I mean, is a Caribbean med school graduate a doctor? You can study a lot less than 500-1000 hours and still be an MD for sure, no matter how badly you score after the absurdly long prep period. 1000 hours is half of a full-time labor year! Most medical students only get 8 weeks to review for USMLE!

 

[deleted1085158]

Showing across several decades that SAT is the best predictor of MCAT is about as close as we will get I think. Then again, most knowledge is inferred. We've technically never proven that smoking causes lung cancer in humans. But if you get asked about it on your MCAT, the answer will be yes.


I mean, is a Caribbean med school graduate a doctor? You can study a lot less than 500-1000 hours and still be an MD for sure, no matter how badly you score after the absurdly long prep period. 1000 hours is half of a full-time labor year! Most medical students only get 8 weeks to review for USMLE!

Oh I'm sure you can get into a Caribbean school with less than 500 but actually becoming a doctor is an ENTIRELY different subject of discussion so I don't think "MD for sure" is in the cards when you go down that route. Some become doctors but I don't think any school should be graduating "some" doctors.

I don't believe SAT is a predictor of MCAT. A person can change considerably in four years of college and go from an immature teenager to a mature adult.

Like I said, I agree that innate ability does play a factor in the MCAT but I think that has more to do with the higher end of the scores. Saying someone didn't study and got a 504 because of innate ability is just silly.

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

Let me guess you studied something like engineering, compsci, math, physics, chemistry? You're a case in point, you dropped a top 5% MCAT score meanwhile thousands of straight A bio majors struggle to get a competitive score. Reasoning > studiousness.

Comp sci, at a "not Ivy league, but you've heard of it" school, but frankly I struggled even during semesters where I only had science classes with no comp sci so. I similarly dropped a pretty high SAT in high school and always had pretty solid AP scores with no studying, while having mediocre grades.

I really do think it's a solid 50/50. From having friends that have studied, I always found that minimizing the time spent on content with interspersed Anki is the way to do it. Logical reasoning and speed to reasoning of course helps, and is certainly improved by logic dependent puzzle-solving classes (ie comp sci, organic chemistry, etc). My approach to the MCAT mostly relied on "none of this is more complicated then the basic algorithms course you took" and that worked for the most part. None of the passages neared the complete mind**** of some of my CS courses.

As to why the median score is so low? I frankly think people do not study for this test correctly. Many try to do it during classes, spend too little time on it, procrastinate, etc. I legitimately see no reason why ANYONE cannot get a 510 or above with a solid 3-4 months of studying. Unlike the STEP you have frankly unlimited time to study for this exam. MCAT is an indicator that you can and will be able to score well (or now pass) STEP with a limited amount of time that med school allows you to have to pass.

 

[deleted1085158]

Comp sci, at a "not Ivy league, but you've heard of it" school, but frankly I struggled even during semesters where I only had science classes with no comp sci so. I similarly dropped a pretty high SAT in high school and always had pretty solid AP scores with no studying, while having mediocre grades.

I really do think it's a solid 50/50. From having friends that have studied, I always found that minimizing the time spent on content with interspersed Anki is the way to do it. Logical reasoning and speed to reasoning of course helps, and is certainly improved by logic dependent puzzle-solving classes (ie comp sci, organic chemistry, etc). My approach to the MCAT mostly relied on "none of this is more complicated then the basic algorithms course you took" and that worked for the most part. None of the passages neared the complete mind**** of some of my CS courses.

As to why the median score is so low? I frankly think people do not study for this test correctly. Many try to do it during classes, spend too little time on it, procrastinate, etc. I legitimately see no reason why ANYONE cannot get a 510 or above with a solid 3-4 months of studying. Unlike the STEP you have frankly unlimited time to study for this exam. MCAT is an indicator that you can and will be able to score well (or now pass) STEP with a limited amount of time that med school allows you to have to pass.

I was in denial for the longest time on this issue but at some point you realize that this is what the exam is actually trying to predict.

 

[Mr.Blackdoc.5]

Agree with Princeton - I was able to brute force myself to a 520+ by seeing so much difficult material before test day that nothing surprised me when I sat for the exam.