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

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.

510 is a stretch imo. 500 should be doable for anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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!
Yeah, maybe based on the old mcat. Those studies are outdated
 
Yeah, maybe based on the old mcat. Those studies are outdated

Yeah i'm curious to see correlations with the new MCAT. There are SDN anecdotes talking about the new MCAT being even more g loaded than the old (and it could be because of longer exams, more passages etc). So the correlations might be even higher but no way to tell without updated studies
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Yeah, maybe based on the old mcat. Those studies are outdated
The first study linked is from this year and uses the new MCAT

Psych/socio I have no idea what that's like. But the other three sections are just rebrandings of the previous PS/Verbal/BS sections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The MCAT is about 80% IQ and 20% content... The USMLE is the complete opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"test taking ability" is a euphemism, it means "smart"

Idk i feel that they can be learned some way but it's harder compared to straight up memorizing content. If people are memorizing their way to the MCAT and treat it like a strictly content test, there's a very high chance they'll end up with a bad score.

I think someone with strong reasoning skills has a much better chance of doing well on the MCAT than someone who just blindly memorizes. So if reasoning/test taking are just IQ/g factor/smarts, i guess i'd have to agree with the assessment the exam is heavily g loaded
 
Idk i feel that they can be learned some way but it's harder compared to straight up memorizing content. If people are memorizing their way to the MCAT and treat it like a strictly content test, there's a very high chance they'll end up with a bad score.

I think someone with strong reasoning skills has a much better chance of doing well on the MCAT than someone who just blindly memorizes. So if reasoning/test taking are just IQ/g factor/smarts, i guess i'd have to agree with the assessment the exam is heavily g loaded
'strong reasoning skills' AKA high IQ...
 
Mcat is a strange test. Some people will never do well on verbal reasoning. I think that's what will doom the poor performers. Parallel passages were on the Physical science and Biological science sections.
Like, never seen before science logic and questions based on it.
I took the mcat in the early 2000s.
That said, you can learn to do better on never seen before passages and improve on intellectual reasoning skills. And you can still count the best 1 of 3, I believe.
I learned to read fast and make a decision from studying the mcat.
The only thing I read like that these days, is the chart.
 
Mcat is a strange test. Some people will never do well on verbal reasoning. I think that's what will doom the poor performers. Parallel passages were on the Physical science and Biological science sections.
Like, never seen before science logic and questions based on it.
I took the mcat in the early 2000s.
That said, you can learn to do better on never seen before passages and improve on intellectual reasoning skills. And you can still count the best 1 of 3, I believe.
I learned to read fast and make a decision from studying the mcat.
The only thing I read like that these days, is the chart.
I studied for over 3 months and over 50% of that time was spent in VR... still got a 7 on it. If you are an ESOL like me, you are pretty much screwed.
 
The MCAT is a complete money grab and in no way a valid indicator of success. Standardized testing in general has been shown time and time again that it does not adequately assess one's true potential, yet it seems many colleges still consider an applicant's test scores the most important part of their application. Personally, I don't want to read another article about lack of diversity in medicine until this atrocity of an application process is revamped.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The MCAT is a complete money grab and in no way a valid indicator of success. Standardized testing in general has been shown time and time again that it does not adequately assess one's true potential, yet it seems many colleges still consider an applicant's test scores the most important part of their application. Personally, I don't want to read another article about lack of diversity in medicine until this atrocity of an application process is revamped.
 
The MCAT is a complete money grab and in no way a valid indicator of success. Standardized testing in general has been shown time and time again that it does not adequately assess one's true potential, yet it seems many colleges still consider an applicant's test scores the most important part of their application. Personally, I don't want to read another article about lack of diversity in medicine until this atrocity of an application process is revamped.
There's oodles of data published by the AAMC that shows the MCAT is very helpful in assessing whether people will need extra board attempts, extra time to graduate, or graduate at all.

The admit rates for URM students with numbers predicting successful completion of the MD and passage of boards is actually very good! The main problem is really a lack of URM students reaching that point in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I see this all the time but I think it's an excuse for laziness. I'm ESL (English is 3rd language) and scored 128 CARS. I grew up in a **** hole of a country, no internet, no toilets, you name it. A friend of mine (also ESL) scored 131 but grew up in the states with a good life, many of my other ESL friends all scored 125-127 on CARS. Some of my US-born friends and other people I know who attended top high schools ($30k/year high school) and did well on SAT/ACT scored poorly on CARS because they were not interested in practicing and working their but off, and instead went vacationing.

The easiest sections to increase through practice is P/S >>> B/B & C/P >> CARS - but nonetheless, it can be increased through hard work.
Maybe my study technique for the VR was not optimal, but I can assure you i spent a lot time in that section. Oh well, I will be an attending in 6 months.

You did extremely well as an ESL. 128 is like a 10-11 in the old version.
 
I see this all the time but I think it's an excuse for laziness. I'm ESL (English is 3rd language) and scored 128 CARS. I grew up in a **** hole of a country, no internet, no toilets, you name it. A friend of mine (also ESL) scored 131 but grew up in the states with a good life, many of my other ESL friends all scored 125-127 on CARS. Some of my US-born friends and other people I know who attended top high schools ($30k/year high school) and did well on SAT/ACT scored poorly on CARS because they were not interested in practicing and working their but off, and instead went vacationing.

The easiest sections to increase through practice is P/S >>> B/B & C/P >> CARS - but nonetheless, it can be increased through hard work.

I think the problem with CARS comes down to timing issues that can be resolved with practice
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If the MCAT is an IQ test, does that mean these test prep companies are going to increase our IQ's if we buy the courses?
Alternatively, these courses are a huge ripoff, and they fool people into paying thousands of bucks for what they could do at home with the same review books on their own schedule.

I mean, look at the SAT. There have been repeated studies by the college board to verify that the SAT is prep-resistant and taking an expensive class gives no significant advantage compared to self-practice. People are still out there giving away their money to these companies every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Alternatively, these courses are a huge ripoff, and they fool people into paying thousands of bucks for what they could do at home with the same review books on their own schedule.

I mean, look at the SAT. There have been repeated studies by the college board to verify that the SAT is prep-resistant and taking an expensive class gives no significant advantage compared to self-practice. People are still out there giving away their money to these companies every day.

I'm leaning towards the idea that they are a ripoff but is it really fair to say the MCAT is an IQ test? If it were then what's the point of the pre-req's?

I would still like to believe that if you put in X amount of hours that you can reach a certain threshold.

Now, if the argument is about the highest scores then maybe that has something to do with IQ but you don't need the highest scores to get accepted.
 
I'm leaning towards the idea that they are a ripoff but is it really fair to say the MCAT is an IQ test? If it were then what's the point of the pre-req's?

I would still like to believe that if you put in X amount of hours that you can reach a certain threshold.

Now, if the argument is about the highest scores then maybe that has something to do with IQ but you don't need the highest scores to get accepted.
What's the point of high school when the SAT is mostly what makes you a candidate for selective college admissions? It's a similar phenomenon. Basic sciences in college give you familiarity with the topics, but then the MCAT is built to test people's ability to quickly take in novel information and reason out the answers to questions about it.

It feels good to believe that hard work is the only barrier to med school admissions, but you have to have brains too. It's not hard to find forum posts of people who tried 110%, multiple times, and could never break into competitive score range.
 
Alternatively, these courses are a huge ripoff, and they fool people into paying thousands of bucks for what they could do at home with the same review books on their own schedule.

I mean, look at the SAT. There have been repeated studies by the college board to verify that the SAT is prep-resistant and taking an expensive class gives no significant advantage compared to self-practice. People are still out there giving away their money to these companies every day.

How is the SAT prep resistant? Like there are effective and free strategies to nail 800 in reading and math!
 
How is the SAT prep resistant? Like there are effective and free strategies to nail 800 in reading and math!
Haha yeah that's why a majority of test-takers get a perfect score!

Didn't you also use to claim that with proper prep, anyone could hit a 40+ on the MCAT? What happened to that theory
 
What's the point of high school when the SAT is mostly what makes you a candidate for selective college admissions? It's a similar phenomenon. Basic sciences in college give you familiarity with the topics, but then the MCAT is built to test people's ability to quickly take in novel information and reason out the answers to questions about it.

It feels good to believe that hard work is the only barrier to med school admissions, but you have to have brains too. It's not hard to find forum posts of people who tried 110%, multiple times, and could never break into competitive score range.

Did they describe how they study on SDN?

I mean ever since it became clear that test taking skills are considered to be smarts/IQ/g factor, i don't know what to say. The disagreement lies whether test taking skills can be learned/taught.
 
Haha yeah that's why a majority of test-takers get a perfect score!

Didn't you also use to claim that with proper prep, anyone could hit a 40+ on the MCAT? What happened to that theory

Because they didn't read the strategies or take the exam seriously or learned bad habits they couldn't unlearn or were lazy etc. Idk man i feel hesitant to attribute this mainly to lack of innate intelligence.

That got revised down to 500+/25+ :bag::sorry:
 
Because they didn't read the strategies or take the exam seriously or learned bad habits they couldn't unlearn or were lazy etc. Idk man i feel hesitant to attribute this mainly to lack of innate intelligence.

That got revised down to 500+/25+ :bag::sorry:
Did they describe how they study on SDN?

I mean ever since it became clear that test taking skills are considered to be smarts/IQ/g factor, i don't know what to say. The disagreement lies whether test taking skills can be learned/taught.
Idk what to tell you man. There's a whole field for this, psychometrics. Generalized intelligence is a very real, measurable, hereditary trait. It's stable over time and setting. And it's very tightly correlated with many things, not just academic measures like the SAT, but life in general like final SES quartile at retirement.

And the college board has repeatedly demonstrated that you CANNOT take someone with a mediocre baseline SAT ability and coach them up to the top of the curve. It just doesn't work like that.

It ain't fair but it's reality.
 
It feels good to believe that hard work is the only barrier to med school admissions, but you have to have brains too. It's not hard to find forum posts of people who tried 110%, multiple times, and could never break into competitive score range.
I don't agree with your theory. I know a lot of people who have taken the MCAT twice and the second score is always better. The difference is they studied differently the second time around.

You have to define competitive though. IMO, if you have a score that gets you into some medical school then you did fine.
 
Idk what to tell you man. There's a whole field for this, psychometrics. Generalized intelligence is a very real, measurable, hereditary trait. It's stable over time and setting. And it's very tightly correlated with many things, not just academic measures like the SAT, but life in general like final SES quartile at retirement.

And the college board has repeatedly demonstrated that you CANNOT take someone with a mediocre baseline SAT ability and coach them up to the top of the curve. It just doesn't work like that.

It ain't fair but it's reality.

g factors are real but i don't think they're necessarily static and can't be changed. Like i'm aware of the studies but there's a reason why there's a huge controversy over this topic with repeated criticisms on flawed designs and methodology.

The College Board might claim that yet the jumps in SAT scores do happen. Are they likely? Probably not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't agree with your theory. I know a lot of people who have taken the MCAT twice and the second score is always better. The difference is they studied differently the second time around.

You have to define competitive though. IMO, if you have a score that gets you into some medical school then you did fine.
The AAMC disagrees with your disagreement. Almost everyone ends up between -2 to +4 from their original score (old test). If you get a crappy score on your first test and then massively improve and get a competitive second score, you're an outlier. This is necessary for a test like the MCAT or SAT. The goal of scoring applicants is to benchmark their ability, not select for who was willing to spend the most hours in the library.

There's all sorts of exceptions like URM, whether you have friendly instate schools, etc but for the typical ORM traditional applicant I'd say ~80th percentile or better is a good target (510). Based on the retest data, you'd have to already be well above-average on your first attempt to make that feasible on retake.
 
The AAMC disagrees with your disagreement. Almost everyone ends up between -2 to +4 from their original score (old test). If you get a crappy score on your first test and then massively improve and get a competitive second score, you're an outlier. This is necessary for a test like the MCAT or SAT. The goal of scoring applicants is to benchmark their ability, not select for who was willing to spend the most hours in the library.

There's all sorts of exceptions like URM, whether you have friendly instate schools, etc but for the typical ORM traditional applicant I'd say ~80th percentile or better is a good target (510). Based on the retest data, you'd have to already be well above-average on your first attempt to make that feasible on retake.

Idk there's a lot of outliers on SDN and reddit seeing how many (N>>10) jump from 500 to upper 510s/520s
 
I'm just saying the data doesn't discourage someone from scoring far higher than predicted. Data approximations don't always reflect individual performance well.
There will always be a few outliers and some with less than ideal prep the first time they take it. One of my friends who is a radonc doc now had a 8 points jump the 2nd time he took it...
 
My head hurts. What are you all suggesting? That you can't study for this exam?
You can study for it. Everyone should. The notion that anyone can score top quartile if they study right, or that extensive studying is the primary determinant of your score, are nonsense though. It's much more about your ability than your prep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My head hurts. What are you all suggesting? That you can't study for this exam?
No, just that performance is not strictly correlated with hours of prep, because innate ability as well as level of foundational knowledge are factors that are unique for each of us. Anyone can improve performance, at least marginally, by studying. But it's also true that everyone reaches a point of diminishing returns, and that everyone has a different potential. So, in the end, I might do better with 200 hours than you will ever do, even with 500, 1,000, 1,500 hours, etc. I am pretty sure THAT'S the point! :cool:
 
My head hurts. What are you all suggesting? That you can't study for this exam?

I think it's possible to study for the MCAT and do well. The discussions on g factors, innate intelligence etc are just off topic stuff that can be viewed discouraging when taken seriously
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You can study for it. Everyone should. The notion that anyone can score top quartile if they study right, or that extensive studying is the primary determinant of your score, are nonsense though. It's much more about your ability than your prep.

That's in reference to SAT. However, i still claim anyone can break 500 if they study well
 
I think it's possible to study for the MCAT and do well. The discussions on g factors, innate intelligence etc are just off topic stuff that can be viewed discouraging when taken seriously
Definitely. The takeaway should be that people prepare diligently and let the chips fall where they may, and resist the temptation to believe that any score is possible, and that you're at fault because you could have done better if only you had more time, or a different set of books, or a prep course, etc.
 
That's in reference to SAT. However, i still claim anyone can break 500 if they study well
I have a friend who studied for over a year and took the exam 3-4 times and his highest score was 20... I am sure you think anyone can get into med school too.
 
So overall I think anyone can get a 500 if they have a decent grasp of the content (maybe even 504) but beyond that is where innate intellect/strategy/critical reasoning takes over.
So if you put in about 500 hours of studying, you can get a 504 almost guaranteed?
 
I was going to ask you about any tips you have but I just saw you have links about MCAT study plans, and I'm guessing when you say it's about how you study, you mean reducing passive studying?

Yeah the idea is to do a lot of practice. But that focuses more heavily on test taking skills with content review being an added bonus. Unfortunately, some believe this can't be improved because it's linked to ability
 
Top