MCAT accommodations no longer get flagged

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

pithy84

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
247
Reaction score
158
It looks like people who receive accommodations on the MCAT will no longer have their score flagged:

AAMC website announcement

I make no value judgment about whether score flagging is good or bad (not at present). However, I invite other people to post their opinions.

Interestingly, I don't see any news stories about this. Prior to this policy change, which takes effect in "late March of 2015", people who received MCAT accommodations for a disability got an asterisk or something similar stating that the test was "administered under non-standard conditions". Although this asterisk sometimes meant the student got extended time, it could also appear if the proctor fell asleep during the test (true story) or if there was a power outage during the test (also a true story). Same asterisk in all cases.

Of note, the MCAT is the last major exam in the US to abandon the policy of flagging scores. The LSAT (law school admission test) had to stop flagging scores in 2014 because they lost a lawsuit, it was a somewhat major news item. The LSAT was also fined several million dollars. News stories at that time pointed out that the MCAT was the only holdout, and their policy probably would not withstand a lawsuit.

The SAT had to stop flagging scores in 2002, also because they lost a lawsuit.

The GRE (for grad school) is not flagged. The TOEFL (test of English as a foreign language) is not flagged. The GMAT (for business school) is not flagged. I have grown bored of looking up standardized tests, it is apparent that none of them are flagged anymore.

Receiving accommodations on the MCAT is still extremely difficult. The MCAT has a reputation for setting the bar extremely high, relative to other standardized tests. According to the latest data I can find, less than 1% of MCAT examinees are approved for extended time, stop-the-clock breaks, extended breaks, or other accommodations that change the timing. Accommodations for personal medical items (such as food, water, or medication) are more common and apparently easier to get. Other accommodations include increased font size for poor vision. All these accommodations used to get an asterisk (a flag), now none will.

Whether it is fair to grant extended time is a difficult question, but it is possible to address this question with science. Unfortunately, this research has not been done in the case of the MCAT. Research does exist for the SAT, and it seems that extended time on the SAT is indeed fair. The disabled students who receive extended time go on to do well in college, their SAT scores remain a valid predictor of college grades.

From a legal standpoint, it seems rather clear that score flagging was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Every time this question was tested by a court, the court ruled that score flagging is illegal (see the LSAT decision in 2014 and the SAT decision in 2002). The ADA makes it very clear that employers and schools cannot ask applicants if they are disabled (with limited exceptions). If you cannot ask, then why should you be notified?

The ADA is actually an interesting law. A man applying for a job was asked if he was disabled, and he lied and said no. Upon learning of his disability, the employer fired him for lying in his interview. This went to court, and the court ruled that the man had been wrongfully terminated. The man had a right to lie, because the question itself was illegal. The opposing lawyers argued that the man should have told his interviewer, "that question is illegal, I will not answer it," but the court found that answering in that manner would potentially bias the interviewer. Lying was legally permissible under those circumstances.

As I mentioned in another post, the ADA does not protect people with temporary disabilities such as broken bones. The MCAT doesn't allow you to have a cast on, and they are not obligated to bend this policy, even with advance notice and a doctor's note. This seems rather silly to me, but in theory you could hide a cheat sheet inside your cast. Also in theory, you can wait until your bone heals and then take the MCAT.

Laws are weird.

Members don't see this ad.
 
What constitutes time pressure for you may not be the same for others. Giving more time to someone does not mean he will be under no time pressure, or under less time pressure.
but it does mean objectively that they needed more time....which should be noted if you give them more time
 
What constitutes time pressure for you may not be the same for others. Giving more time to someone does not mean he will be under no time pressure, or under less time pressure.
EXACTLY. The point of the MCAT is to asses how someone does under a standard amount of time not try to equalize things out. With the usual amount of time I may feel a lot of pressure while Much Smarter Student X feels very little pressure; that is fine. The goal isn't fairness. It's to set up a standard set of parameters and see how different people handle it. If ADD Student Y gets to triple their time, they may feel the same amount of pressure as me, which is fair for them vs me, but makes it invalid to present the results as if we were capable of exactly the same thing.
 
Sure, it just isn't valid to say an extended time 35 and standard 35 fully demonstrate the same things, and that the difference (problem solving speed) is meaningless to admissions.

I don't oppose the idea of accommodations, if you need extra time you should get it. You just shouldn't be able to present your performance as if it contained the "under time pressure" element present in others scores.
Here's the thing though- the MCAT was not designed to compare candidates, but merely to determine their chance of success in medical school. That's the whole reason they're getting rid of the requirement to report accommodations in the first place- they go against the spirit of why the test was designed. If a guy can get a 35 with accommodations on the MCAT, he'll probably have equivalent performance with accommodations in medical school, so you've got a good feel for how he will do.
It ends up translating into a general argument about efficiency/speed at X quality though. Are there a lot of fields where replacing a doc with someone twice as fast to reason through problems would have no impact at all? Why don't MD schools all have median MCATs in the mid 20s if all we care about is a sufficiency?
It's not about just being sufficient- it's about board score performance. And, guess what, you can also get extended time on the USMLE. So their performance on an extended MCAT will probably be equivalent to their performance on an extended USMLE, and on extended exams during school. As to speed, when it comes to the real world, most people work into a rhythm. You're not thinking so much as going through a routine. The MCAT is not a routine, nor is the USMLE. By the time these people are attendings, they will be working with a much smaller patient population, much smaller differentials (on average), and will be seeing a lot of routine stuff that takes zero time after you've seen it enough. Standardized tests are a very poor approximation of the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
but it does mean objectively that they needed more time....which should be noted if you give them more time
No - it should not. Your argument is going in circles. It has been extensively explained why this should not be noted if there are valid reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
EXACTLY. The point of the MCAT is to asses how someone does under a standard amount of time not try to equalize things out. With the usual amount of time I may feel a lot of pressure while Much Smarter Student X feels very little pressure; that is fine. The goal isn't fairness. It's to set up a standard set of parameters and see how different people handle it. If ADD Student Y gets to triple their time, they may feel the same amount of pressure as me, which is fair for them vs me, but makes it invalid to present the results as if we were capable of exactly the same thing.
The results aren't meant for direct comparison. They're meant to evaluate how each student will do in medical school and the boards under whatever parameters they were given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The results aren't meant for direct comparison. They're meant to evaluate how each student will do in medical school and the boards under whatever parameters they were given.
that's bull......the absolute definitive reason for standardized testing is for direct comparison
 
that's bull......the absolute definitive reason for standardized testing is for direct comparison
The MCAT was not designed to compare students. It was designed to determine how likely an individual would be to succeed in medical school. That is its stated purpose, and that is why it exists. It is standardized so that schools can be sure that each student with a given score will be likely to succeed in medical school, period. If you would like to discuss it with the AAMC, I suppose you could write them an email.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's the thing though- the MCAT was not designed to compare candidates, but merely to determine their chance of success in medical school. That's the whole reason they're getting rid of the requirement to report accommodations in the first place- they go against the spirit of why the test was designed. If a guy can get a 35 with accommodations on the MCAT, he'll probably have equivalent performance with accommodations in medical school, so you've got a good feel for how he will do.

It's not about just being sufficient- it's about board score performance. And, guess what, you can also get extended time on the USMLE. So their performance on an extended MCAT will probably be equivalent to their performance on an extended USMLE, and on extended exams during school. As to speed, when it comes to the real world, most people work into a rhythm. You're not thinking so much as going through a routine. The MCAT is not a routine, nor is the USMLE. By the time these people are attendings, they will be working with a much smaller patient population, much smaller differentials (on average), and will be seeing a lot of routine stuff that takes zero time after you've seen it enough. Standardized tests are a very poor approximation of the real world.
Passing the buck to the USMLE doesn't resolve things whatsoever. Now the argument just centers on that instead of the MCAT/premed grades and exams (which I agree is a valid point, if all accommodations remain available throughout the MD process then the emphasis of debate can be moved on that terminal end rather than this first weedout barrier).
 
The MCAT was not designed to compare students. It was designed to determine how likely an individual would be to succeed in medical school. That is its stated purpose, and that is why it exists. It is standardized so that schools can be sure that each student with a given score will be likely to succeed in medical school, period. If you would like to discuss it with the AAMC, I suppose you could write them an email.
If you refuse to acknowledge how the test is actually used, we'll just have to keep disagreeing on this topic
 
The MCAT was not designed to compare students. It was designed to determine how likely an individual would be to succeed in medical school. That is its stated purpose, and that is why it exists. It is standardized so that schools can be sure that each student with a given score will be likely to succeed in medical school, period. If you would like to discuss it with the AAMC, I suppose you could write them an email.
Oh come on now, the AAMC claims the new test should be read as middle of the curve / 500 are capable and competitive, you know what they state has very little to do with adcom evaluation.
 
If you refuse to acknowledge how the test is actually used, we'll just have to keep disagreeing on this topic
The reason that they are no longer reporting accommodations is precisely because the test is misused. This is the same reason there's been much discussion on and off by the NBME about making the USMLE pass/fail, as it was never designed to be a test that compares candidates. They are doing this to bring the use of the test in-line with the spirit of the test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
EXACTLY. The point of the MCAT is to asses how someone does under a standard amount of time not try to equalize things out. With the usual amount of time I may feel a lot of pressure while Much Smarter Student X feels very little pressure; that is fine. The goal isn't fairness. It's to set up a standard set of parameters and see how different people handle it. If ADD Student Y gets to triple their time, they may feel the same amount of pressure as me, which is fair for them vs me, but makes it invalid to present the results as if we were capable of exactly the same thing.
Is it more important to you that we have a "standard amount of time" or that we have an "accurate way to measure "intelligence""? If the goal is to select the "best" and "smartest" applicants, the latter is a better idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Passing the buck to the USMLE doesn't resolve things whatsoever. Now the argument just centers on that instead of the MCAT/premed grades and exams (which I agree is a valid point, if all accommodations remain available throughout the MD process then the emphasis of debate can be moved on that terminal end rather than this first weedout barrier).
Accommodations are offered all throughout, so I see no reason to view them as something that should be factored as some sort of disadvantage by adcoms, as the potential student will have the same conditions from the beginning to the end of the education.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
that's bull......the absolute definitive reason for standardized testing is for direct comparison

Here's the key thing: there's a difference between what the AAMC believes the purpose of the MCAT is for and what ADCOMs believe the purpose of the MCAT is and how it should be usedd. The AAMC also doesn't want medical schools using scores past a certain point for distinguishing between candidates. Basically the AAMC doesn't support the idea that schools discriminate between an applicant who has a 514 vs a 521. But we all know ADCOMs will continue to do this.

The AAMC wants the MCAT to be used as a "competency" test. They've repeated this over and over the idea that past a certain score of around 27 you can't really use the MCAT as means of determining who is most likely to pass boards. Now you could argue there is a big difference between merely passing Step 1 and thriving on it, but to the AAMC, past a certain MCAT score, there isn't a meaningful predictive value to it that should be used. ADCOMs view this differently; they want to use the MCAT to distinguish amongst applicants. Well guess who decides the conditions under which the MCAT can be taken under and whether or not it will be flagged? The AAMC, not ADCOMs at particular schools.

Now the one question I have and maybe @Mad Jack can answer this is does anybody know how going about getting accommodations varies for the MCAT and Step 1? Is it easier to get it for the MCAT or Step 1? Because if it is alot harder to do so for Step 1, then that can start to raise its own set of questions about not flagging a test that was given more time to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is it more important to you that we have a "standard amount of time" or that we have an "accurate way to measure "intelligence""? If the goal is to select the "best" and "smartest" applicants, the latter is a better idea.
I would say that intelligence and problem solving speed are different and each (rightly) valued. Same with work ethic and many other things.

Accommodations are offered all throughout, so I see no reason to view them as something that should be factored as some sort of disadvantage by adcoms, as the potential student will have the same conditions from the beginning to the end of the education.
Right, and I'm saying this just shifts my argument to that point (end of education), since it is still true that the same scores/grades earned under accommodated conditions vs standard does not mean similar predicted performance in problem solving on the job, where needing thrice as long is suddenly unaccommodated
 
Here's the key thing: there's a difference between what the AAMC believes the purpose of the MCAT is for and what ADCOMs want to use the MCAT for. The AAMC also doesn't want medical schools using scores past a certain point for distinguishing between candidates. Basically the AAMC doesn't support the idea that schools discriminate between an applicant who has a 514 vs a 521. But we all know ADCOMs will continue to do this.

The AAMC wants the MCAT to be used as a "competency" test. They've repeated this over and over the idea that past a certain score of around 27 you can't really use the MCAT as means of determining who is most likely to pass boards. Now you could argue there is a big difference between merely passing Step 1 and thriving on it, but to the AAMC, past a certain MCAT score, there isn't a meaningful predictive value to it that should be used. ADCOMs view this differently; they want to use the MCAT to distinguish amongst applicants. Well guess who decides the conditions under which the MCAT can be taken under and whether or not it will be flagged? The AAMC, not ADCOMs at particular schools.

Now the one question I have and maybe @Mad Jack can answer this is does anybody know how going about getting accommodations varies for the MCAT and Step 1? Is it easier to get it for the MCAT or Step 1? Because if it is alot harder to do so for Step 1, then that can start to raise its own set of questions about not flagging a test that was given more time to take.
Yeah, it's clearly under the control of the AAMC. The argument would really be whether it's a good idea for them to start obscuring the things adcoms are interested in. If the MCAT were to be made into a simple pass/fail reporting system, I bet the response would just be to start weighting the GPA and context it was earned in a lot more.
 
Thank god we have the ADA to protect society from anonymous internet yahoos who have no idea what they're talking about.
Ooh strong points, totally changed my opinion. Not like its possible for attempts to do good and create fairness to actually be problematic in a system oriented around differential abilities, like say with undergraduate affirmative action.
 
Yeah, it's clearly under the control of the AAMC. The argument would really be whether it's a good idea for them to start obscuring the things adcoms are interested in. If the MCAT were to be made into a simple pass/fail reporting system, I bet the response would just be to start weighting the GPA and context it was earned in a lot more.

Well ADCOMs do a fairly good idea of obscuring what they want to about the admission process. This kind of brings me to a somewhat unrelated topic; how to view multiple MCAT attempts. It's funny you'll see ADCOMs on this site who's schools average multiple MCAT attempts say "well the AAMC recommends we do so, so that's why we do it" but then blatantly ignore the AAMC's suggestion to not discriminate different MCAT scores past a point to nearly the extent ADCOMs do. Not saying whether averaging multiple MCAT attempts is right or wrong, just to me it is somewhat disingenous when someone asks why you do it to simply pull out the "oh well the AAMC told us to do it so we'll do it" card.

Bottom line there isn't always agreement on how the AAMC and ADCOMs view the MCAT. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were ADCOMs for example who aren't a big fan of the introduction of the psych/soc section.
 
Well ADCOMs do a fairly good idea of obscuring what they want to about the admission process. This kind of brings me to a somewhat unrelated topic; how to view multiple MCAT attempts. It's funny you'll see ADCOMs on this site who's schools average multiple MCAT attempts say "well the AAMC recommends we do so, so that's why we do it" but then blatantly ignore the AAMC's suggestion to not discriminate different MCAT scores past a point to nearly the extent ADCOMs do. Not saying whether averaging multiple MCAT attempts is right or wrong, just to me it is somewhat disingenous when someone asks why you do it to simply pull out the "oh well the AAMC told us to do it so we'll do it" card.
This makes sense to me, because they are really saying "AAMC statistical analysis supports use of averages to give a more accurate confidence band" which is very different from adopting policy views about sufficient vs extraordinarily high performance
 
Ooh strong points, totally changed my opinion. Not like its possible for attempts to do good and create fairness to actually be problematic in a system oriented around differential abilities, like say with undergraduate affirmative action.

Well it's clear you have no particular familiarity with or expertise in the subject. You're doing a lot of hand-waving and nothing else. No one here is going to convince you of anything, and we can't give you any sort of education or experience here on an SDN form. At this point all I can do is shrug and be glad that we've moved beyond this type of BS and the AAMC has seen fit to move in the exact opposite direction you're advocating for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would say that intelligence and problem solving speed are different and each (rightly) valued. Same with work ethic and many other things.


Right, and I'm saying this just shifts my argument to that point (end of education), since it is still true that the same scores/grades earned under accommodated conditions vs standard does not mean similar predicted performance in problem solving on the job, where needing thrice as long is suddenly unaccommodated
I've never heard of someone getting three times as long to complete the MCAT lol. No one is getting over 24 hours to do the test, that's just ridiculous.

As to real-world performance, there has never been any study whatsoever that correlates better board or MCAT performance with physician outcomes literally ever, so we don't have any data to either support or refute your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This makes sense to me, because they are really saying "AAMC statistical analysis supports use of averages to give a more accurate confidence band" which is very different from adopting policy views about sufficient vs extraordinarily high performance

I see what you are saying but I still think there is a level of dis-ingenuousness in their response to that. Just like there is disingenuousness in how schools will give a lot of lip service about how they view multiple MCAT attempts where what they will tell you often isn't exactly what they will do and what they say can be rather misleading in some cases. Regardless though its all besides the point this whole discussion just for some reason reminded me of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've never heard of someone getting three times as long to complete the MCAT lol. No one is getting over 24 hours to do the test, that's just ridiculous.

As to real-world performance, there has never been any study whatsoever that correlates better board or MCAT performance with physician outcomes literally ever, so we don't have any data to either support or refute your argument.
Like I said earlier, there's no evidence for higher intelligence or better work ethic correlating either, it's an impasse if you want to disagree about something like that being desired by admissions.


Epic facepalm.
Well it's clear you have no particular familiarity with or expertise in the subject. You're doing a lot of hand-waving and nothing else. No one here is going to convince you of anything, and we can't give you any sort of education or experience here on an SDN form. At this point all I can do is shrug and be glad that we've moved beyond this type of BS and the AAMC has seen fit to move in the exact opposite direction you're advocating for.
I'm completely open to having my views changed if someone can give me a reasonable argument for it. Really it has always been an argument in favor of fairness that I hear, which I categorically dismiss because the goal of this process is not fairness. You've got to tell me why it is better to present the scores similarly, how it is beneficial to remove this information when seeking to perform best evaluation, rather than just beneficial to the disadvantaged applicant.
 
Like I said earlier, there's no evidence for higher intelligence or better work ethic correlating either, it's an impasse if you want to disagree about something like that being desired by admissions.




I'm completely open to having my views changed if someone can give me a reasonable argument for it. Really it has always been an argument in favor of fairness that I hear, which I categorically dismiss because the goal of this process is not fairness. You've got to tell me why it is better to present the scores similarly, how it is beneficial to remove this information when seeking to perform best evaluation, rather than just beneficial to the disadvantaged applicant.
Hey, all I showed is that you get accommodations all around, and we've got no idea what happens in practice, but we know that tests aren't good approximations of the real world. We don't have a test that can appropriately assess clinical competence in real-world situations before medical school, so we've got no idea how these people would fare in such situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm completely open to having my views changed if someone can give me a reasonable argument for it. Really it has always been an argument in favor of fairness that I hear, which I categorically dismiss because the goal of this process is not fairness. You've got to tell me why it is better to present the scores similarly, how it is beneficial to remove this information when seeking to perform best evaluation, rather than just beneficial to the disadvantaged applicant.

Look at it like this.

Do you have any reason to think, other than "it just has to be this way", that whether or not someone got accommodations on the MCAT has any impact whatsoever on their performance on Step 1 or their ability as a physician?

Any actual reason to actually think that? Any data whatsoever? Any numbers? Any personal experience with physicians or even med students who got accommodations?

Anything?
 
Hey, all I showed is that you get accommodations all around, and we've got no idea what happens in practice, but we know that tests aren't good approximations of the real world. We don't have a test that can appropriately assess clinical competence in real-world situations before medical school, so we've got no idea how these people would fare in such situations.
MMIs get close to clinical grades at least, like .65 correlation iirc! But fair enough, just like with brainpower and work ethic it's not an empirical discussion
 
Look at it like this.

Do you have any reason to think, other than "it just has to be this way", that whether or not someone got accommodations on the MCAT has any impact whatsoever on their performance on Step 1 or their ability as a physician?

Any actual reason to actually think that? Any data whatsoever? Any numbers? Any personal experience with physicians or even med students who got accommodations?

Anything?
I have known several people with serious ADHD that were accommodated for exams (both collegiate ones and standardized ones like SAT/ACT). Their ability to reason through problems was there, but they had a much harder time doing it quickly. It was very apparent in stuff like doing groupwork problem sets together. If they were expected to do an exam in the same time as other students they would fail it. They did extremely well with their accommodations. There was no doubt in my mind that their scores carried a slightly different set of valid things that could be read out of them than similar scores though. Yes they had mastery of concepts. No they did not have mastery of concept application under a lot of time pressure.

Like I said it's not an empirical debate - but it is possible to believe things are desired and important without a study being conducted on it. Substitute something like work ethic and see if you're really skeptical that it's important out of lack of numbers on # of sacrifices made to work vs patient satisfaction etc.
 
I have known several people with serious ADHD that were accommodated for exams (both collegiate ones and standardized ones like SAT/ACT). Their ability to reason through problems was there, but they had a much harder time doing it quickly. It was very apparent in stuff like doing groupwork problem sets together. If they were expected to do an exam in the same time as other students they would fail it. They did extremely well with their accommodations. There was no doubt in my mind that their scores carried a slightly different set of valid things that could be read out of them than similar scores though. Yes they had mastery of concepts. No they did not have mastery of concept application under a lot of time pressure.

Like I said it's not an empirical debate - but it is possible to believe things are desired and important without a study being conducted on it. Substitute something like work ethic and see if you're really skeptical that it's important out of lack of numbers on # of sacrifices made to work vs patient satisfaction etc.

So how well did they do on the MCAT with accommodations, and how have they turned out as physicians?
 
So how well did they do on the MCAT with accommodations, and how have they turned out as physicians?
Would argument from anecdote mean anything anyways? As I've said a few times I have beliefs about traits being useful without empirical evidence. This is one, as is intelligence, as is work ethic. If you want to deny that these play any role in the career until provided studies, that is your prerogative. If you have no logical grounds to contest my argument that more information for evaluators is better for evaluation (though less fair to the applicants) and only want to play the skeptic, we will agree to disagree.
 
Would argument from anecdote mean anything anyways? As I've said a few times I have beliefs about traits being useful without empirical evidence. This is one, as is intelligence, as is work ethic. If you want to deny that these play any role in the career until provided studies, that is your prerogative. If you have no logical grounds to contest my argument that more information for evaluators is better for evaluation (though less fair to the applicants) and only want to play the skeptic, we will agree to disagree.

Well if it doesn't mean anything, then you shouldn't be trying to use it as evidence.

You have beliefs. Beliefs based on assumption with no evidence or actual experience.

I know several people who got MCAT accommodations and they're all really, really smart and really, really quick. They are going to make outstanding physicians. MCAT accommodations are not that extreme. You get a little bit of extra time, or maybe an extra break or two if you have food or bathroom needs or something like that.

Did you know common accommodations also include different kinds of mice, or a workstation of a different height? Also includes being able to take an inhaler or insulin pump into the exam area.

No one gets 3 times the time.

Suffice to say, there's no actual reason to believe that MCAT accommodations have any correlation whatsoever with performance in medical school or as a physician. You can repeat it over and over and wave your arms in the air about how it just has to be, but that's not how science and reality work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well if it doesn't mean anything, then you shouldn't be trying to use it as evidence.

You have beliefs. Beliefs based on assumption with no evidence or actual experience.

I know several people who got MCAT accommodations and they're all really, really smart and really, really quick. They are going to make outstanding physicians. MCAT accommodations are not that extreme. You get a little bit of extra time, or maybe an extra break or two if you have food or bathroom needs or something like that.

Did you know common accommodations also include different kinds of mice, or a workstation of a different height? Also includes being able to take an inhaler or insulin pump into the exam area.

No one gets 3 times the time.

Suffice to say, there's no actual reason to believe that MCAT accommodations have any correlation whatsoever with performance in medical school or as a physician. You can repeat it over and over and wave your arms in the air about how it just has to be, but that's not how science and reality work.
You asked if I had personal experience. I never would've brought it up myself.

My belief that work ethic is valuable isn't based on anything empirically documented either. Do you contest me here?

I would see different accommodations flagged differently. Different mice vs time extension being listed identically poses the same problems with limiting transparency. The whole point is to give admissions the most complete picture, and let them judge.

You can get greatly extended time essentially the limit is with how long you can sit there testing. Even a 50% time increase makes a huge difference in how score can be interpreted. But you are right that 3x is exaggeration.

And here we agree to disagree, I think there is something gained not only in being able to understand and apply but also in being able to do so quickly/efficiently. Ill wave my arms around about work ethics too if you want to proclaim there's no reason it should be important and cite lack of data as evidence for your case
 
You asked if I had personal experience. I never would've brought it up myself.

I meant with the MCAT, medical school, residency, and being a physician in the real world. Not with the SAT and undergrad classes.

My belief that work ethic is valuable isn't based on anything empirically documented either. Do you contest me here?

I would see different accommodations flagged differently. Different mice vs time extension being listed identically poses the same problems with limiting transparency. The whole point is to give admissions the most complete picture, and let them judge.

You can get greatly extended time essentially the limit is with how long you can sit there testing. Even a 50% time increase makes a huge difference in how score can be interpreted. But you are right that 3x is exaggeration.

And here we agree to disagree, I think there is something gained not only in being able to understand and apply but also in being able to do so quickly/efficiently. Ill wave my arms around about work ethics too if you want to proclaim there's no reason it should be important and cite lack of data as evidence for your case

Maybe instead of requiring that we tell all the medical school adcoms everything about our minor medical problems despite the fact that they apparently make no difference whatsoever to performance in school and beyond, we allow applicants to keep that to themselves.

Now, if you could establish that getting accommodations actually correlates with poor performance in school or beyond, then we can start talking.

But for now? Discriminating against people based on minor medical factors that you simply imagine or believe have some impact is unacceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I meant with the MCAT, medical school, residency, and being a physician in the real world. Not with the SAT and undergrad classes.



Maybe instead of requiring that we tell all the medical school adcoms everything about our minor medical problems despite the fact that they apparently make no difference whatsoever to performance in school and beyond, we allow applicants to keep that to themselves.

Now, if you could establish that getting accommodations actually correlates with poor performance in school or beyond, then we can start talking.

But for now? Discriminating against people based on minor medical factors that you simply imagine or believe have some impact is unacceptable.
You can't say there is apparently no difference; there is no apparent empirical data either way. It's a question of expectation/reasoning about whether it would be useful, like a good work ethic.

I respect medical privacy. Eg if someone needs ADHD meds, no need to report that. I would never want anything specific at all posted with the accommodation, only what the difference in conditions was for total transparency to the evaluator. Honestly I'd be fine with time extension being available to anyone. Let people choose if they want to have "under standard time" added to the evaluation of their performance or if they don't want it.

And even under the prior system with accommodation flagged and only available to those with medical need, if you are correct then adcoms would act accordingly to its irrelevance and discard the additional info. It's a case of potential gain if adcoms do care, no potential loss if they don't.

It's an interesting point to consider why extended time is not readily offered to anyone that wants it. Does that not imply there is something about the standardized time pressure that is critical to the validity of the metric? It certainly seemed to me when I took it that the problems were individually simple and feasible and it was only the need to do many problems in a short time that added any difficulty.
 
Last edited:
You can't say there is apparently no difference; there is no apparent empirical data either way. It's a question of expectation/reasoning about whether it would be useful, like a good work ethic.

I respect medical privacy. Eg if someone needs ADHD meds, no need to report that. I would never want anything specific at all posted with the accommodation, only what the difference in conditions was for total transparency to the evaluator. Honestly I'd be fine with time extension being available to anyone. Let people choose if they want to have "under standard time" added to the evaluation of their performance or if they don't want it.

And even under the prior system with accommodation flagged and only available to those with medical need, if you are correct then adcoms would act accordingly to its irrelevance and discard the additional info. It's a case of potential gain if adcoms do care, no potential loss if they don't.

It's an interesting point to consider why extended time is not readily offered to anyone that wants it. Does that not imply there is something about the standardized time pressure that is critical to the validity of the metric? It certainly seemed to me when I took it that the problems were individually simple and feasible and it was only the need to do many problems in a short time that added any difficulty.

Hey efle-
Weren't you going home to Google your facts several hours ago? And post your research references?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sure, it just isn't valid to say an extended time 35 and standard 35 fully demonstrate the same things, and that the difference (problem solving speed) is meaningless to admissions.

I don't oppose the idea of accommodations, if you need extra time you should get it. You just shouldn't be able to present your performance as if it contained the "under time pressure" element present in others scores.

Blah, blah, blah...you continue to repeat the same garbage over and over.
I'm starting to think you have a problem with processing information.
Maybe you should choose another career path...your attending will crush you.
 
Ooh strong points, totally changed my opinion. Not like its possible for attempts to do good and create fairness to actually be problematic in a system oriented around differential abilities, like say with undergraduate affirmative action.
efle -

Are you now going to claim that affirmative action has ruined the medical field? and the entire undergrad educational institution?
 
Hey efle-
Weren't you going home to Google your facts several hours ago? And post your research references?
Yah, that's what I thought.
You got nothing kid.
Here, this took me about two seconds to google. I'm sure if you're really curious you can find plenty more. Critical reading and maths are very g-loaded.


efle -

Are you now going to claim that affirmative action has ruined the medical field? and the entire undergrad educational institution?
No, my claim would be that the well-intentioned efforts to increase minority representation in STEM via affirmative action are counterproductive to society / their stated aims, due to greatly increased attrition by boosting lower academic readiness students into classes with more academically prepared peers

See here and here


Blah, blah, blah...you continue to repeat the same garbage over and over.
I'm starting to think you have a problem with processing information.
Maybe you should choose another career path...your attending will crush you.
Yep that's me, stupid old efle
 
WOW!
Really?
Affirmative action & STEM are counter productive to society?

You've problems kid.

No, affirmative action is counteractive to the socially beneficial aim of increasing minority representation in STEM. Read the papers, stuff like:

"minority students were in general over-matched, resulting in low graduation rates in the sciences and a decreased probability of graduating in four years. In contrast, non-minority students were better-placed for graduating in the sciences. Policies that improve the matching of students to colleges – at least when the student is interested in the sciences – have the potential to mitigate some of the under-representation of minorities in the sciences"

should make this clear.

Keep it coming with the personal attacks, I'm sure people will be distracted that way from your total lack of response to the actual points of argument.
 
No, affirmative action is counteractive to the socially beneficial aim of increasing minority representation in STEM. Read the papers, stuff like:

"minority students were in general over-matched, resulting in low graduation rates in the sciences and a decreased probability of graduating in four years. In contrast, non-minority students were better-placed for graduating in the sciences. Policies that improve the matching of students to colleges – at least when the student is interested in the sciences – have the potential to mitigate some of the under-representation of minorities in the sciences"

should make this clear.

Keep it coming with the personal attacks, I'm sure people will be distracted that way from your total lack of response to the actual points of argument.


You originally wrote:
"efforts to increase minority representation in STEM via affirmative action are counterproductive to society"

I wish you luck in your pursuit of your dreams. I caution you tho...maybe you shall research the percentage of foreign (non-Caucasian) physicians practicing medicine in the USA...you may not like working with a such diversified group of professionals.

Good luck. Take care.
 
You originally wrote:
"efforts to increase minority representation in STEM via affirmative action are counterproductive to society"

I wish you luck in your pursuit of your dreams. I caution you tho...maybe you shall research the percentage of foreign (non-Caucasian) physicians practicing medicine in the USA...you may not like working with a such diversified group of professionals.

Good luck. Take care.
What I wrote is correct and the same thing; the effort to use AA to increase minority representation in STEM is self-defeating and counterproductive; society would benefit by these AA based efforts being ended because it would allow minority representation to improve. You really can't blame me for your poor reading comprehension, it is clear that what I think is counterproductive is the attempt being made via affirmative action not the goal of increasing minority representation itself.

I see you did keep up the personal attacks, though now you've stepped into vague implications of racism. Nothing in what I said states that I oppose the goal of increasing minority representation, only the flawed effort to achieve it via AA. You have no idea what race or nationality of origin I am.

About time you bowed out. You sure you don't want to call me stupid or racist or some other ad hominem a couple more times to try and save some face?
 
You originally wrote:
"efforts to increase minority representation in STEM via affirmative action are counterproductive to society"

I wish you luck in your pursuit of your dreams. I caution you tho...maybe you shall research the percentage of foreign (non-Caucasian) physicians practicing medicine in the USA...you may not like working with a such diversified group of professionals.

Good luck. Take care.
This is why all freshman should take a course in formal logic.
 
What I wrote is correct and the same thing; the effort to use AA to increase minority representation in STEM is self-defeating and counterproductive; society would benefit by these AA based efforts being ended because it would allow minority representation to improve. You really can't blame me for your poor reading comprehension, it is clear that what I think is counterproductive is the attempt being made via affirmative action not the goal of increasing minority representation itself.

I see you did keep up the personal attacks, though now you've stepped into vague implications of racism. Nothing in what I said states that I oppose the goal of increasing minority representation, only the flawed effort to achieve it via AA. You have no idea what race or nationality of origin I am.

About time you bowed out. You sure you don't want to call me stupid or racist or some other ad hominem a couple more times to try and save some face?
^^^Racist racist who practices racism. You lose the argument by default because you are a horrible person.
 
Top