Lowest MD MCAT?

[Orthodoc40]

thats not true

what do you think they have the boards for? to make sure you learned what you were supposed to

the people who do not learn the info are forced to cram majorly (even taking prep classes) before taking the test

its kinda like a person who got perfect scores in med school but couldnt remember anything (or perform when it was time) for the open heart surgery

the doc screwed up your heart...it doesnt matter though, because he worked hard all througout med school

you need to be able to perform with the knowledge you are supposed to get from these classes

You think the MCAT is testing what we were supposed to have learned in those classes we got A's in??!!

I think you contradict yourself when you say that people get A's just by studying hard for a final or a mid-term - aka one day of a test.
And then go on to say that the MCAT, one day of a test, is a better measure of what kind of medical student someone will be??!

 

[Vox Animo]

I would get a 0 if i could.

Of course you better hope that adcoms get the joke.

 

[Law2Doc]

A "B" student at Harvard would probably easily pull all As at an average state school. Harvard students are at Harvard for a reason. They're hardworking. If they were the top of their class in high school, there's no reason they shouldn't succeed in college.

This was the faulty logic that got Harvard in hot water for grade inflation in the 90s, when like 90% of their graduating classes graduated "with Honors" because every professor thought that the basement grade at Harvard should be a B+, by virtue of the student being a Harvard student in the first place. The school has since backed off this position as misguided, and I think there isn't the kind of grade inflation at Harvard today as there was a while back. (I can tell you from professional experience that far too many Harvard folks used to get creamed in the real world because they often weren't as smart as their alma mater spent four or more years telling them they were; they often effectively had a "target" on their back by virtue of being Harvard grads and folks would take great pleasure in trouncing them.)
Folks peak at different stages and you really need to keep proving yourself forever, because the best in high school is often not the best in a subsequent phase of life. Particularly so if coddled in an Ivy cradle. As an example, the smartest guy at my law school was from a college no one in the class had every heard of; the guy came out of nowhere and vaulted right past everyone.

 

[dopaminesurge]

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. It's a fact. You can look at the percentage of students who got A's twenty years ago, and can look at it now. The comparison is ridiculous. 49% of Harvard students got A's in 2001. That's up from 23% in 1986. That's grade inflation, sweetheart. I have friends who go there. They tell me it's not a really hard school. Like they say, it's a lot harder getting in than getting out.

Citation - Doubling of A's

I really hate it when people misuse the word "fact" so liberally. What is a fact, exactly? That percentage of As are higher? Fine. That this is due to grade inflation? Perhaps, or perhaps Harvard professors used to go by a policy that only allowed <25% As or something, and that policy was turned over. You don't know. Maybe the professors from 20 years ago were undergoing a hardass trend. Nothing is fact. It's statistics. It's interpretive. It's not fact.

And "I have friends who go there" too. I didn't find Berkeley to be particularly difficult, nor did I find it to be less difficult than high school, so it's all subjective.

As for Law2Doc - I never said Harvard students were necessarily brilliant, or even smart. But I will say they're studious, motivated and ambitious. I'd say those are qualities far more conducive to academic success. So nothing new is actually said. That 90% of the class graduates with honors is stupid, because an honors system SHOULD be based on comparison with peers. But I still am not convinced there's grade inflation at Harvard. I don't find it inconceivable that a roomful of Harvard students would all be competent enough to produce grade A work.

 

[Guile]

This is OLD news. That was 2001. Take a look at the stats from the classes of 05 and 06 and the Crimson articles when grades are released. Especially for the sciences, grades are dropping and grade inflation has been addressed. The average GPA is lower each semester, honors are capped, and only the truly hardworking/brilliant walk out of intro orgo with an A.

... yup not at all bitter here =)

Well, that's news to me. I would imagine and hope that Harvard would do something about such a widespread problem especially since it received such publicity. I still think that it's an issue, but at least it's a publicly-adressed one now. And there's no bitterness here. I don't have an axe to grind. I go to a top 20 undergrad institution, and I've been really happy with my education. It's prepared me well for med school, and I'm confident that I'll do well this application season. I just wanted to point out some facts and inject some data into this discussion. It was getting way too anecdotal and subjective.

This was the faulty logic that got Harvard in hot water for grade inflation in the 90s, when like 90% of their graduating classes graduated "with Honors" because every professor thought that the basement grade at Harvard should be a B+, by virtue of the student being a Harvard student in the first place. The school has since backed off this position as misguided, and I think there isn't the kind of grade inflation at Harvard today as there was a while back. (I can tell you from professional experience that far too many Harvard folks used to get creamed in the real world because they often weren't as smart as their alma mater spent four or more years telling them they were; they often effectively had a "target" on their back by virtue of being Harvard grads and folks would take great pleasure in trouncing them.)
Folks peak at different stages and you really need to keep proving yourself forever, because the best in high school is often not the best in a subsequent phase of life. Particularly so if coddled in an Ivy cradle. As an example, the smartest guy at my law school was from a college no one in the class had every heard of; the guy came out of nowhere and vaulted right past everyone.

Well-said. 👍

 

[njcaldwell]

I know a MS3 at UC Davis who got in with a 23 MCAT and a 3.6 undergrad GPA. He was chicano and wanted to go back and help URM.

 

[dopaminesurge]

I know a MS3 at UC Davis who got in with a 23 MCAT and a 3.6 undergrad GPA. He was chicano and wanted to go back and help URM.

That's infuriating. Like the URM don't deserve doctors more capable than him.

flame war? No, I'm really not in the mood for it.

 

[xanthomondo]

You think the MCAT is testing what we were supposed to have learned in those classes we got A's in??!!

I think you contradict yourself when you say that people get A's just by studying hard for a final or a mid-term - aka one day of a test.
And then go on to say that the MCAT, one day of a test, is a better measure of what kind of medical student someone will be??!

i think you mistaken working hard for learning

are you a bio major by any chance

 

[Orthodoc40]

i think you mistaken working hard for learning

are you a bio major by any chance

No - I wasn't a bio major or any science major at all.

I think you're mistaking standardized testing as a measure of learning, and dismissing classroom testing as irrelevant. OR I am misunderstanding you.

Your argument about the board scores is also over emphasizing the unimportant (test taking). If you ask any MD they will tell you that what they learned (and were tested on) in medical school was just another hoop to jump through, and had little to do with their practice at all.

 

[uvce]

That's infuriating. Like the URM don't deserve doctors more capable than him.

flame war? No, I'm really not in the mood for it.

URM or not, should the mediocre MCAT score determine his capability as a doctor, when he has four more years of schooling, board exams, internship, residency, etc., to prove himself?

 

[psymedicus]

Good advice about the reading. However, some schools do actually view the verbal as the most important score. Others view all scores equally or maybe weight the sciences. But it would makes sense to need excellent verbal reasoning to rapidly absorb the flood of information you get hosed with in M1 and M2.

That's slightly reassuring, since I only did biochem, not orgo, and scored highest in verbal for AAMC 4-6 (PS BS 9-10). Any idea which schools those are which view verbal as important?

 

[dopaminesurge]

URM or not, should the mediocre MCAT score determine his capability as a doctor, when he has four more years of schooling, board exams, internship, residency, etc., to prove himself?

I mean, yes, we currently use the MCAT as a measure of potential. He shouldn't be held to different standards.

 

[TakingBakSunday]

.

 

[TakingBakSunday]

I mean, yes, we currently use the MCAT as a measure of potential. He shouldn't be held to different standards.

👍 People wanted their measuring stick, and the MCAT is it. You can't surmise about every other person and what they might be like in theory, because it's just that, theory.

 

[dopaminesurge]

👍 People wanted their measuring stick, and the MCAT is it. You can't surmise about every other person and what they might be like in theory, because it's just that, theory.

Also, I like the band after which you're named.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I know a MS3 at UC Davis who got in with a 23 MCAT and a 3.6 undergrad GPA. He was chicano and wanted to go back and help URM.

Do you by any chance know his MCAT split?

 

[TakingBakSunday]

Also, I like the band after which you're named.

Thanks. I'm gonna go see them on sept. 2nd at that huge fair in Allentown, PA. I love their new album, Louder Now

 

[dopaminesurge]

Thanks. I'm gonna go see them on sept. 2nd at that huge fair in Allentown, PA. I love their new album, Louder Now

Hot. I've been in the middle east for a year, so I haven't seen anything. I'll make up for it next year. I don't even know who's touring at the moment.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Hot. I've been in the middle east for a year, so I haven't seen anything. I'll make up for it next year. I don't even know who's touring at the moment.

the new Panic! at the Disco cd is the album of the year imo

 

[dopaminesurge]

the new Panic! at the Disco cd is the album of the year imo

Yeah, we got that one here. It's niiice. Furthermore, the albums are less of a problem. It's that no bands make it to Israel, and when they do (Depeche Mode, RHCP) the shows are cancelled because Hezbollah attacks. I miss concerts.

 

[ADeadLois]

the new Panic! at the Disco cd is the album of the year imo

I liked them better when they were called Fall Out Boy.

 

[TakingBakSunday]

the new Panic! at the Disco cd is the album of the year imo

The names of their songs are great. Some of their songs sound kinda similar to Fall Out Boy, but I guess that's why the guy in that band with the label helped sign them. I'm def. a fan.

btw, we're awesome at taking over this thread.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

The names of their songs are great. Some of their songs sound kinda similar to Fall Out Boy, but I guess that's why the guy in that band with the label helped sign them. I'm def. a fan.

btw, we're awesome at taking over this thread.

The band is so much more innovative than Fall Out Boy though, it's just that they frontmen have similar sounding voices. It's sorta like Fall Out Boy + Techno with a touch of My Chemical Romance

 

[TakingBakSunday]

The band is so much more innovative than Fall Out Boy though, it's just that they frontmen have similar sounding voices. It's sorta like Fall Out Boy + Techno with a touch of My Chemical Romance

Got any good recommendations by Chemical Romance? They're gonna be at that concert with Taking Back Sunday but I haven't heard too much of their stuff.
Also, Dopaminesurge, I remember when I was in Israel for a month that they had the most ridiculous remixes of songs over there that I couldn't find anywhere else. lemme know if you have any good ones. sorry bout the no concerts, you'll just have to make up for that when you get back. definitely hit up the 9:30 club if you're in DC.

 

[dopaminesurge]

Got any good recommendations by Chemical Romance? They're gonna be at that concert with Taking Back Sunday but I haven't heard too much of their stuff.
Also, Dopaminesurge, I remember when I was in Israel for a month that they had the most ridiculous remixes of songs over there that I couldn't find anywhere else. lemme know if you have any good ones. sorry bout the no concerts, you'll just have to make up for that when you get back. definitely hit up the 9:30 club if you're in DC.

Will do. Pull through GW and GT...

You're DC based?

 

[TakingBakSunday]

Will do. Pull through GW and GT...

You're DC based?

Yeah, definitely hoping for GW and GT too...this city is too much fun to leave.

 

[marg99]

the new Panic! at the Disco cd is the album of the year imo

my 12 year old brother and 90% of his friends think the same thing.

 

[Guile]

There is a doctor on staff at Duke who is doing/has done a big study on MCAT and future success as a doctor. The basic conclusion was that a high MCAT is no indicative of future high performance in med school. I have his name written down somewhere. I'll have to dig it up.

Also, the valedictorian of UT-Houston two years ago (didn't know that med schools have valedictorians) got a 29.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

my 12 year old brother and 90% of his friends think the same thing.

they have good taste in music!

 

[Pinkertinkle]

There is a doctor on staff at Duke who is doing/has done a big study on MCAT and future success as a doctor. The basic conclusion was that a high MCAT is no indicative of future high performance in med school. I have his name written down somewhere. I'll have to dig it up.

Also, the valedictorian of UT-Houston two years ago (didn't know that med schools have valedictorians) got a 29.

Link me.

 

[xanthomondo]

that overplayed Panic! at the disco song sucks

its the same 3 lines sung over and over and over and over

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

that overplayed Panic! at the disco song sucks

its the same 3 lines sung over and over and over and over

You're right, it is overplayed, but only because there is so much garbage on the radio these days.

 

[uvce]

👍 People wanted their measuring stick, and the MCAT is it. You can't surmise about every other person and what they might be like in theory, because it's just that, theory.

The MCAT is just one of the yardsticks, along with GPA, ECs, LORs, interview performance, and a multitude of other things that go into consideration. So if a particular school decided to assign less weight to it in comparison with the others for whatever reason, I don't think that it should be a reason for others to complain. I feel that there are enough checks, balances and safeguards in place to make sure that anyone graduating from a US medical school is well qualified to be a doctor - granted there will be some personality differences.

 

[ADeadLois]

my 12 year old brother and 90% of his friends think the same thing.

Haha, well played.

 

[Orthodoc40]

The MCAT is just one of the yardsticks, along with GPA, ECs, LORs, interview performance, and a multitude of other things that go into consideration. So if a particular school decided to assign less weight to it in comparison with the others for whatever reason, I don't think that it should be a reason for others to complain. I feel that there are enough checks, balances and safeguards in place to make sure that anyone graduating from a US medical school is well qualified to be a doctor - granted there will be some personality differences.

Agreed!

 

[DrBowtie]

There is a doctor on staff at Duke who is doing/has done a big study on MCAT and future success as a doctor. The basic conclusion was that a high MCAT is no indicative of future high performance in med school. I have his name written down somewhere. I'll have to dig it up.

Also, the valedictorian of UT-Houston two years ago (didn't know that med schools have valedictorians) got a 29.

Here's the thing about your anecdote:
It doesn't account for board scores. Said individual could barely pass their step exams and have no other residency choices but FP. I wouldn't define that as success.

In fact its hard to define it period.

 

[Law2Doc]

Here's the thing about your anecdote:
It doesn't account for board scores. Said individual could barely pass their step exams and have no other residency choices but FP. I wouldn't define that as success.

In fact its hard to define it period.

I think you are getting onto really shaky ground if you start defining things like "success", being a "good doctor" and so on by those who have gotten high board scores or by getting into a competitive specialty. There are plenty of folks in competitive specialties who are lousy doctors and many folks who are FPs and are great doctors and/or enjoy great success in their field.
So while there is some correlation between MCAT and board scores (and it isn't a huge correlation BTW), there really is no correlation between MCAT and being a good or a successful doctor.

 

[uvce]

I think you are getting onto really shaky ground if you start defining things like "success", being a "good doctor" and so on by those who have gotten high board scores or by getting into a competitive specialty. There are plenty of folks in competitive specialties who are lousy doctors and many folks who are FPs and are great doctors and/or enjoy great success in their field.
So while there is some correlation between MCAT and board scores (and it isn't a huge correlation BTW), there really is no correlation between MCAT and being a good or a successful doctor.

I was going to say the same thing and you beat me to it! If you define "success" by material wealth, there are plenty of foreign medical graduates who are practicing in the areas of internal medicine, family practice and pediatrics, who never had to take the MCAT and are doing extremely well financially. Most of them entered medical school right after high school, which continues to be the practice even today in those countries.

 

[Guile]

Here's the thing about your anecdote:
It doesn't account for board scores. Said individual could barely pass their step exams and have no other residency choices but FP. I wouldn't define that as success.

In fact its hard to define it period.

😕 😕 😕 I didn't give any details about the study. I didn't talk about boards or anything. Are you assuming this or do you know about this guy?

 

[OSUdoc08]

anyone heard of someone ever getting an MD interview/accepted with the following stats:

23 MCAT (7p, 8v, 8b, 9). 3.5-3.6 sci gpa, 3.7 gpa (undergrad), master's program (social science field) 3.86? Strong lor, tons of volunteer/shadow/research etc.

I would suggest applying to multiple DO schools as well as MD schools to ensure that you enter medical school without delay.

 

[DrBowtie]

😕 😕 😕 I didn't give any details about the study. I didn't talk about boards or anything. Are you assuming this or do you know about this guy?

I didn't assume anything. I said you didn't account for board scores. Thus potentially the scenario I presented could be a possibilty. Conversely, he could have gotten a 270 or anything in between. I was just saying you defined success in med school only by GPA. Nothing more was implied.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think you are getting onto really shaky ground if you start defining things like "success", being a "good doctor" and so on by those who have gotten high board scores or by getting into a competitive specialty. There are plenty of folks in competitive specialties who are lousy doctors and many folks who are FPs and are great doctors and/or enjoy great success in their field.
So while there is some correlation between MCAT and board scores (and it isn't a huge correlation BTW), there really is no correlation between MCAT and being a good or a successful doctor.

I was defining success in medical school. Barely passing step 1 limits your options and I wouldn't call that very successful.

 

[DrBowtie]

I was going to say the same thing and you beat me to it! If you define "success" by material wealth, there are plenty of foreign medical graduates who are practicing in the areas of internal medicine, family practice and pediatrics, who never had to take the MCAT and are doing extremely well financially. Most of them entered medical school right after high school, which continues to be the practice even today in those countries.

You brought up wealth, I didn't.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

Thats what I hate about the stigma of a low GPA. I swear I've worked harder than almost all the people out there with 3.5's and a bio major, OR BIO-psychology or enviromental science and pre-med prereq's.

Exactly. I don't look down on people with lower-end GPA's.

A lot of people meet applicants with 3.1 and think, "Well, they barely worked hard at all through undergrad, unlike me, who has a 3.9. I am obviously a better student."

Please.
Why don't you take that 3.9, give him a 2.5, then tell him to spend two-three more years in undergrad, retaking the most annoying classes (i.e. organic chemistry) and then ace them... only to bring your GPA up to a 3.1 and have people tell you that you should take even more classes to raise it up to a 3.5 (which will take three more years of your life).

The 3.1 has had to endure those painful lectures twice, has aced those same tests and got the same A grades, and spent two more years in undergrad paying for it.

You have to work really hard in your junior and senior years to raise a 2.5 to a 3.1. You have to shrug off all those people who say you won't make it, unlike when you have a 3.9 and everyone tells you that not only are you going to make it, but you're likely to get in a Top Ten.

With a 3.1, you have to prove yourself that much more. By the time you get there, that "measly" 3.1 is something to be damn proud of.

I just wish people would give respect where it's due. These people are hard workers.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Exactly. I don't look down on people with lower-end GPA's.

A lot of people meet applicants with 3.1 and think, "Well, they barely worked hard at all through undergrad, unlike me, who has a 3.9. I am obviously a better student."

Please.
Why don't you take that 3.9, give him a 2.5, then tell him to spend two-three more years in undergrad, retaking the most annoying classes (i.e. organic chemistry) and then ace them... only to bring your GPA up to a 3.1 and have people tell you that you should take even more classes to raise it up to a 3.5 (which will take three more years of your life).

The 3.1 has had to endure those painful lectures twice, has aced those same tests and got the same A grades, and spent two more years in undergrad paying for it.

You have to work really hard in your junior and senior years to raise a 2.5 to a 3.1. You have to shrug off all those people who say you won't make it, unlike when you have a 3.9 and everyone tells you that not only are you going to make it, but you're likely to get in a Top Ten.

With a 3.1, you have to prove yourself that much more. By the time you get there, that "measly" 3.1 is something to be damn proud of.

I just wish people would give respect where it's due. These people are hard workers.

In reality, 3.0 is awesome in college - it's only not awesome in the pre-med world/sdn

and like they say, A's are great, but C's get degrees 😀

 

[dopaminesurge]

I think you are getting onto really shaky ground if you start defining things like "success", being a "good doctor" and so on by those who have gotten high board scores or by getting into a competitive specialty. There are plenty of folks in competitive specialties who are lousy doctors and many folks who are FPs and are great doctors and/or enjoy great success in their field.
So while there is some correlation between MCAT and board scores (and it isn't a huge correlation BTW), there really is no correlation between MCAT and being a good or a successful doctor.

Oh, come on, L2D - don't condescend. No one here is stupid enough to think MCAT scores reflect compassion or other qualities that are crucial for a great FP doctor. But then, why don't we get rid of them altogether? Yes, there are special cases, and maybe this URM 23 MCAT is one of them, but on the overall, I would be insulted to hear this if I came from a URM community.

 

[Law2Doc]

Oh, come on, L2D - don't condescend. No one here is stupid enough to think MCAT scores reflect compassion or other qualities that are crucial for a great FP doctor. But then, why don't we get rid of them altogether? Yes, there are special cases, and maybe this URM 23 MCAT is one of them, but on the overall, I would be insulted to hear this if I came from a URM community.

There are at least three posts on this thread which seem to equate higher MCAT with going to be a "better doctor", so apparently there are folks on here at risk of being "stupid enough".
Adcoms have the difficult task of selecting the "best" and the "brightest" -- and MCAT is part of the analysis for the "brightest", but perhaps not the "best". A good doctor will be BOTH smart and have the necessary human/interpersonal skills. Someone with a high MCAT score is likely smart, but there may be no correlation to the human/interpersonal skills. So MCAT has its place, and there is no reason to get rid of it, but let's not anyone get confused that the MCAT is not a particularly strong gauge of how good you are going to be when you hit the wards.

 

[Law2Doc]

I was defining success in medical school. Barely passing step 1 limits your options and I wouldn't call that very successful.

It only limits your options if you had any interest in those other choices. Bear in mind that many folks have no interest in specialties such as derm, and wouldn't care if that door was open or closed to them. We are trained from high school on to go into the most competitively ranked college, get the highest possible grades and scores, go to the most competitively ranked med school, and suddenly are in a position where we really ought to decide what you WANT to do. Yet many do what you are doing in this thread, still defining success as getting to the most difficult and most competitive target (It's a very "undergrad" way of thinking) . But the truth of the matter is success is getting to where you want to get to, and doing something that will make you happy much of the time.
Someone who is excited about one of the less competitive areas, gets into one, and does well at it, is, in fact, quite successful. That he had lower grades or board scores than you might is pretty irrelevant -- he got exactly what he needed to get to where he wanted. You will meet folks with higher grades and board scores who also still choose less competitive choices -- foregoing all those open doors to also select the same path to personal measures of success. And you will meet folks who choose competitive specialties mostly just because they can, and many end up unhappy about their decisions. Once you truly figure out what you want to do, you get there and you are on your way to successful, notwithstanding the numeric measures or (lack of) other options.

 

[uvce]

You brought up wealth, I didn't.

Agreed. Just as MCAT is one of the yardsticks for med school admissions, wealth is one of the yardsticks of "success". I think Law2Doc's post above says it all - you need to define what you want in life and go after it, regardless of what others think about it. Which is why the comment about being insulted with a doctor from the URM community having a 23 MCAT puzzles me. What difference does it make whether it is URM or non-URM? How many of us ask our doctors what their MCAT score was, if they did have to take it at all?