MCAT and GPA prediction of success in med school

[IslandStyle808]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yea that's true. I was thinking more along the lines of "if any one section was kept around without being improved which would it be?". I would pick VR because I don't think it can be improved much, while I do think that BS could be made a lot more relevant and therefore an even better predictor than it is now.

Sorry did not see this statement

 

[MedPR]

I'm going to disagree with you on the VR being the least imperfect. As it stands, the VR section is the least predictive of success in medical school (not just USMLE and COMLEX success).

http://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon%20et%20al%20(2007)%20Acad%20Med.pdf

http://www.jaoa.org/content/109/11/592.full.pdf

@OP, the studies were done before 2009 so things may have changed. The first link still shows that there is only a .4 correlation with predictive success in medical school and .6 correlation with predictive success in the USMLE.

Well the "Biological Sciences" portion of any test will likely always be that tests best predictor of success in pre-clinicals/step 1. How "perfect" that section is should be measured against different iterations of itself, not against different sections. Besides the reason stated before, I think VR is the least imperfect of the three sections because, in my opinion, VR cannot be changed and made a better predictor than it already is.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Well the "Biological Sciences" portion of any test will likely always be that tests best predictor of success in pre-clinicals/step 1. How "perfect" that section is should be measured against different iterations of itself, not against different sections. Besides the reason stated before, I think VR is the least imperfect of the three sections because, in my opinion, VR cannot be changed and made a better predictor than it already is.

The links also show not just USMLE/COMLEX success but also medical school (pre-clinical) success in general. The verbal section is the worst predictors in both areas.

You're right you can't make the VR section any better but you can get rid of it (this is what I want actually).

 

[UrbanRiver]

Hence why the 2015 overhaul is a misguided project. Granted, the current test is not perfect (VR!), but I feel that it is rather good at separating the wheat from the chaff, so to say.



GPA is far less precise. It rewards gunners who take all the easy professors or take simple classes for the sole purpose of padding their GPA. It also rewards those enrolled at easy universities, while hurting those that challenge themselves with difficult classes.

And what else could be used besides those 2?



In short, GPA can be manipulated. But the MCAT is standardized for all applicants.... Does that mean the MCAT is flawless? Should we just take everyone with a 30+ into med school and tell the others to come back when they can increase their scores? No. Not by a long shot. People can have bad luck on the MCAT (or good luck....) but it is by far more reliable than any other measure.

I see what you mean, but I do not completely agree with your point about GPA not being a good measure. Looking at it another way, MCAT rewards people with good test taking skills.. which can show that they can reason extremely quickly. However, GPA can reward people who are deep-seated thinkers who can synthesize a large body of data and reason/argue it into a paper. Many good test takers cant write a quality 20 page research paper that may take several months to churn out. I've seen quick decision makers who have large gaps in their thinking... they may be logical but can have a lot more blind spots and make a lot of more careless errors in the long-term. MCAT may correlate well with step 1 but it isnt the best indicator for the best physician.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[MedPR]

I see what you mean, but I do not completely agree with your point about GPA not being a good measure. Looking at it another way, MCAT rewards people with good test taking skills.. which can show that they can reason extremely quickly. However, GPA can reward people who are deep-seated thinkers who can synthesize a large body of data and reason/argue it into a paper. Many good test takers cant write a quality 20 page research paper that may take several months to churn out. I've seen quick decision makers who have large gaps in their thinking... they may be logical but can have a lot more blind spots and make a lot of more careless errors in the long-term. MCAT may correlate well with step 1 but it isnt the best indicator for the best physician.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

That's a pretty big leap you're making. Most pre-meds are not taking classes that require the ability to "synthesize a large body of data and reason/argue it into a paper."

Barring cheating, grade inflation, and easy courses, high GPA shows dedication, hard work, and some level of intelligence. Nothing more. You can't know that the former are not in play though and that's why GPA is not a good measure.

 

[Pattycake25]

I'm not sure I follow. Why would time management be more critical in one curriculum than the other? I'd imagine the volume of information is the same for both curricula.. The only difference is how that volume is organized.

The rate of information delivery is the same, but in systems-based (or any 1-at-a-time system), the information is more interconnected, which to me is an implicit advantage. I feel like in EVMS, each class distracts students from the others. It's juggling more balls at once, just that they are moving slower.

 

[UrbanRiver]

That's a pretty big leap you're making. Most pre-meds are not taking classes that require the ability to "synthesize a large body of data and reason/argue it into a paper."

Barring cheating, grade inflation, and easy courses, high GPA shows dedication, hard work, and some level of intelligence. Nothing more.

Hmm maybe im biased because i was a non science major and associated with people in literature, policy analysis, philosophy, etc. Some of the projects we got into were really challenging, but I have met some genius nonscience premeds through this process. Isn't that why certain med schools like different kinds of majors? Im just saying mcat can't capture anything.. and associating with good test takers, ive found a lot of them to lack comprehensive analysis skills, global thinking.. they make a lot of errors in the long run and have a lot of gaps in their reasoning. Mcat requires only onestep twostep reasoning skills at the mosttt...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[MedPR]

The rate of information delivery is the same, but in systems-based (or any 1-at-a-time system), the information is more interconnected, which to me is an implicit advantage. I feel like in EVMS, each class distracts students from the others. It's juggling more balls at once, just that they are moving slower.

Ok I see what you're getting at now. How critical time management is will probably vary by learning style, but for me time management would be more crucial at EVMS than the other school. Making connections is a big part of how I learn; I'm not much of a memorizer and I know that's something I'm going to have to change come med school.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I'll repeat myself: GPA is not standardized!! That's why it's a less reliable measure of future success. Did any of your Bio classes require you to write long papers on vital topics in embryology? If so, your education was different from mine. I wrote a couple papers for bio classes, but the number of tests I had to take was far greater.

 

[jansOri23]

I'll repeat myself: GPA is not standardized!! That's why it's a less reliable measure of future success. Did any of your Bio classes require you to write long papers on vital topics in embryology? If so, your education was different from mine. I wrote a couple papers for bio classes, but the number of tests I had to take was far greater.

Lolllll the MCAT is not standardized either. Some tests are significantly more difficult from others... and u cannot control for mood, health, family circumstances that can significantly affect a four hour exam. Adcoms know this. Also, if u were dumb and took really hard classes..got poor grades.. than that shows ur lack of judgment... and may deserve it. But then again.. if u took challenging/interesting classes and did really well in themm.. then id say youre better than applicants who got a few points higher on the mcat than u.

Honestly, i feel like people who argue for MCAT are those with high mcat scores and are bitter that people with lower scores are getting in. Same with people who argue for GPA... .. we need both people!!! Med schools want both character and competence!!

 

[Ost3oclast]

I've always heard of the coorelation between MCAT and med school success but I've never really known what "magic number" you needed to theoretically succeed on school. Anybody care to fill in a clueless dude?

 

[IslandStyle808]

I've always heard of the coorelation between MCAT and med school success but I've never really known what "magic number" you needed to theoretically succeed on school. Anybody care to fill in a clueless dude?

I don't know any magic number really but here is some data that is close enough.

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

 

[Ost3oclast]

I don't know any magic number really but here is some data that is close enough.

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

Sweet! Thanks.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Does anyone honestly think that a grade point mean, replete with all the problems of a statistical mean, and susceptible to school-specific variance, major-specific variance, professor-specific variance, etc can accurately predict someone's ability to succeed in 4 years of school???


Come at me brah. U mad or u mirin?

i'm mirin

It's a critical thinking exam that can possibly common all of that major subjects from the pre-med pre-reqs, and with the amount of questions they have it's enough to get an idea of what a student's general knowledge is (it's extremely unlikely that a person would have managed to only study exactly what was on their test and nothing more, or studied only what wasn't on their test). Furthermore, the MCAT is much like the USMLE (standardized test that covers a large breadth of scientific material), so it has a decent correlation to success on STEP 1.

I disagree.

STEP 1 is what, 8 hours and 400 questions or something around that? I believe that statistically significant correlational coefficient is being caused by a third hidden variable, probably endurance. From my anecdotal evidence obtained from reading this website forum, people are usually exhausted by the middle of the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT (I surely was). Maybe those with great endurance are therefore more likely to portray that same endurance on the STEP 1.

This reminds me of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. While it is used to measure intelligence, it actually measures someone's ability to endure 3 hours of questions much more effectively than it does intelligence.

Someone should do a study on mental endurance and success in medical school. I'll just about bet my left testicle that endurance is a better predictor of success on STEP 1 than the MCAT.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

i'm mirin



I disagree.

STEP 1 is what, 8 hours and 400 questions or something around that? I believe that statistically significant correlational coefficient is being caused by a third hidden variable, probably endurance. From my anecdotal evidence obtained from reading this website forum, people are usually exhausted by the middle of the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT (I surely was). Maybe those with great endurance are therefore more likely to portray that same endurance on the STEP 1.

This reminds me of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. While it is used to measure intelligence, it actually measures someone's ability to endure 3 hours of questions much more effectively than it does intelligence.

Someone should do a study on mental endurance and success in medical school. I'll just about bet my left testicle that endurance is a better predictor of success on STEP 1 than the MCAT.

How would you opperationalize that? Or even then create a study that is a valid measure of it?

 

[tarheel1408]

ITT: Poor test takers vs. good test takers.

 

[SOMBound13]

Does anyone honestly think that 144 questions taken in 3 hours can accurately predict someone's ability to succeed in 4 years of school???

MCAT along with sGPA and cGPA should provide a reasonable expectation.

 

[deleted127837]

Does anyone honestly think that 144 questions taken in 3 hours can accurately predict someone's ability to succeed in 4 years of school???

Adcoms do. If you have 6000 candidates for 100 seats, you'd use any simple quantitative measures you could find to narrow that down.

Now if only adcoms would get the picture. 😡

Does anyone honestly think that a grade point mean, replete with all the problems of a statistical mean, and susceptible to school-specific variance, major-specific variance, professor-specific variance, etc can accurately predict someone's ability to succeed in 4 years of school???


Come at me brah. U mad or u mirin?

I thought you were going to stop that ridiculous stunting?

Regardless: it does predict a person's success. Not well, but that's what OP's link stated.

Lolllll the MCAT is not standardized either. Some tests are significantly more difficult from others... and u cannot control for mood, health, family circumstances that can significantly affect a four hour exam. Adcoms know this. Also, if u were dumb and took really hard classes..got poor grades.. than that shows ur lack of judgment... and may deserve it. But then again.. if u took challenging/interesting classes and did really well in themm.. then id say youre better than applicants who got a few points higher on the mcat than u.

Honestly, i feel like people who argue for MCAT are those with high mcat scores and are bitter that people with lower scores are getting in. Same with people who argue for GPA... .. we need both people!!! Med schools want both character and competence!!

Standardized doesn't mean identical difficulty, it means identical scores. "Harder" MCATs, if they actually exist and aren't a combination of the testtaker not knowing certain material very well with crazy experimental sections, would be graded more generously than an "easier" MCAT.

It's your job to standardize mood and all that. It's their job to provide a test for you to take that will produce roughly the same score regardless of what test you take on average, hence why a substantial number of people who retake the MCAT are within a standard deviation of their original score.

Your mistake is in thinking people with high scores have inherently less character than those with low scores. In many if not most cases, this isn't true. People seem to forget there's 40~100 people applying for every seat in a school. If you're #2 of that 100 applicant pool, well, that's great, but #1 still gets the spot (gross simplification).

While there may not be a strong statistical difference between a 33+3.3 and a 38+3.8, the second one is always the safer bet, and will almost always win out, barring a great story from that 33+3.3.

In essence: MCAT shows the ability to absorb a lot of information and perform with it, and to perform under pressure. GPA shows the ability to balance a schedule and perform longitudinally. Both are important.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Again can someone explain to me how useless a statistic is when 90% of variance is due to chance/ other variables? It's bugging me.

 

[CrimsonKing]

MCAT = critical thinking. Medical school = memorization.

You can't memorize your way to even a 28 on the MCAT, but you can memorize your way to even honor medical school exams.

I don't know much about USMLE, but you could probably memorize your way to a good score on Step I as well.

No, you can't. Step 1 requires lots of memorization AND tons of critical thinking. If you memorize but don't really understand, you will bomb it just like you would bomb the MCAT. The difference comes because it requires memorization in addition to critical thinking. If you are really good at critical thinking but don't memorize, you can still do OK on the MCAT. If you don't memorize for Step 1, you will bomb it.

 

[HughMyron]

ITT: Poor test takers vs. good test takers.

Poor test taker = Poor student.

I always tell people: saying that you're a good student but a poor test taker is like saying you're a good chess player who can't actually win a game to save his life.

 

[mimelim]

No, you can't. Step 1 requires lots of memorization AND tons of critical thinking. If you memorize but don't really understand, you will bomb it just like you would bomb the MCAT. The difference comes because it requires memorization in addition to critical thinking. If you are really good at critical thinking but don't memorize, you can still do OK on the MCAT. If you don't memorize for Step 1, you will bomb it.

I actually disagree with this. Personally...

High UG GPA is a sign of work ethic and a little bit of neuroticism (in a good way), but has a very poor positive predictive value for intelligence.

MCAT requires some studying/knowledge, but is heavily focused on critical thinking. If anything the VR section is the most important because it is purely based on what you synthesize and not the fund of knowledge.

Step 1 requires an immense amount of fund of knowledge and a little bit of critical thinking. If you memorized First Aid (FA), the standard review text for Step 1, you would get a 235. I'm fairly confident in that. I think you would be hard pressed to find medical students who have taken Step 1 who don't think that Step 1 is all about what you put into the exam. Understanding material is not the same as critical thinking. Critical thinking requires you to generate substance based on things there is no way you would have seen before or thought about. Step 1 doesn't require you to do that. Yes, it is more than just memorizing lists of information, but it is more of a "What is this disease we are describing and then what is the detail about the disease that we are asking you to recall?"


Edit: I should add, this is just my opinion. Certainly can not claim to be an authority on this.

 

[daymann]

Compared to the MCAT, GPA may not correlate highly with Step I scores and I'm not surprised, because both Step I and the MCAT require test-taking skills (focus, preparation, etc). That doesn't mean that GPA is any less important in terms of predicting success as a physician because maintaining a high GPA depends on essential non-intellectual qualities like mental resilience, perseverance, and good study habits.

 

[MedPR]

Lolllll the MCAT is not standardized either. Some tests are significantly more difficult from others... and u cannot control for mood, health, family circumstances that can significantly affect a four hour exam. Adcoms know this. Also, if u were dumb and took really hard classes..got poor grades.. than that shows ur lack of judgment... and may deserve it. But then again.. if u took challenging/interesting classes and did really well in themm.. then id say youre better than applicants who got a few points higher on the mcat than u.

Honestly, i feel like people who argue for MCAT are those with high mcat scores and are bitter that people with lower scores are getting in. Same with people who argue for GPA... .. we need both people!!! Med schools want both character and competence!!

The MCAT is standardized.

 

[MedPR]

Poor test taker = Poor student.

I always tell people: saying that you're a good student but a poor test taker is like saying you're a good chess player who can't actually win a game to save his life.

Pretty much agree here. People seem to think you can't learn to become a good test taker; that if you aren't born a good test taker you are doomed. That's just an excuse people make when they don't test well and don't try (or can't succeed) to become a good test taker.

I actually disagree with this. Personally...

High UG GPA is a sign of work ethic and a little bit of neuroticism (in a good way), but has a very poor positive predictive value for intelligence.

MCAT requires some studying/knowledge, but is heavily focused on critical thinking. If anything the VR section is the most important because it is purely based on what you synthesize and not the fund of knowledge.

Step 1 requires an immense amount of fund of knowledge and a little bit of critical thinking. If you memorized First Aid (FA), the standard review text for Step 1, you would get a 235. I'm fairly confident in that. I think you would be hard pressed to find medical students who have taken Step 1 who don't think that Step 1 is all about what you put into the exam. Understanding material is not the same as critical thinking. Critical thinking requires you to generate substance based on things there is no way you would have seen before or thought about. Step 1 doesn't require you to do that. Yes, it is more than just memorizing lists of information, but it is more of a "What is this disease we are describing and then what is the detail about the disease that we are asking you to recall?"

👍

 

[WhovianDO]

Pretty much agree here. People seem to think you can't learn to become a good test taker; that if you aren't born a good test taker you are doomed. That's just an excuse people make when they don't test well and don't try (or can't succeed) to become a good test taker.


👍

I haven't seen anyone advocate for the PS section. Lol.

That's cool since I did great on the BS and great on the VR, but subpar on the PS. 😛

 

[mimelim]

I haven't seen anyone advocate for the PS section. Lol.

That's cool since I did great on the BS and great on the VR, but subpar on the PS. 😛

Mine was VR = PS >>>> BS

Where > symbolizes a point drop. 😉

 

[SOMBound13]

Poor test taker = Poor student.

I always tell people: saying that you're a good student but a poor test taker is like saying you're a good chess player who can't actually win a game to save his life.

lol...

While I've never been a super test taker (not a fast reader), I understand what you mean.

I've always wondered about the students (and parents!) who will loudly claim that a 4.0 student with lowish scores is just a bad test taker. How did he do so well in his classroom tests/exams if he truly is a "bad test taker"? Usually, a very high GPA and lowish test scores indicates huge grade inflation or taking easy courses.

 

[MedPR]

I haven't seen anyone advocate for the PS section. Lol.

That's cool since I did great on the BS and great on the VR, but subpar on the PS. 😛

I think PS is the easiest (not for me) section for people to use background knowledge to succeed.

 

[WhovianDO]

I think PS is the easiest (not for me) section for people to use background knowledge to succeed.

Agree.

My background knowledge in PS = poor. I can make 100 excuses, but they are irrelevant. I should have taken physics with another professor, regardless of how well I did in his class. Lol.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

How would you opperationalize that? Or even then create a study that is a valid measure of it?

Well I'm sure there is some test out there that measures someone's ability to endure long periods of mental stress. Or you could give people a really long test and use brain scans to measure how long the prefrontal cortex can maintain optimal activity. But nobody is going to ever do that as long as the MCAT costs 270 bucks and thousands of people take it every month.

MCAT along with sGPA and cGPA should provide a reasonable expectation.

1 variable by itself is different than 3 variables in combination.

Adcoms do. If you have 6000 candidates for 100 seats, you'd use any simple quantitative measures you could find to narrow that down.

Don't generalize. Because admission committees require applicants to take the MCAT doesn't mean that they all believe it is a predictor of success.

I wholeheartedly believe that success in 4 years of college (GPA) is the best available predictor of success in the next 4 years of college. Not a single test taken in one day.

Poor test taker = Poor student.

I always tell people: saying that you're a good student but a poor test taker is like saying you're a good chess player who can't actually win a game to save his life.

Stupidest thing I've read in about 34 days.

 

[MedPR]

Well I'm sure there is some test out there that measures someone's ability to endure long periods of mental stress. Or you could give people a really long test and use brain scans to measure how long the prefrontal cortex can maintain optimal activity. But nobody is going to ever do that as long as the MCAT costs 270 bucks and thousands of people take it every month.



1 variable by itself is different than 3 variables in combination.



Don't generalize. Because admission committees require applicants to take the MCAT doesn't mean that they all believe it is a predictor of success.

I wholeheartedly believe that success in 4 years of college (GPA) is the best available predictor of success in the next 4 years of college. Not a single test taken in one day.



Stupidest thing I've read in about 34 days.

It's easy to make that statement when you ignore the preparation and critical thinking necessary to succeed on the MCAT. Regardless of your opinion, the MCAT has already been shown to be a much better predictor than GPA. Most likely because there is no easy-mode MCAT; unlike so many easy-mode options when it comes to getting a high GPA.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

It's easy to make that statement when you ignore the preparation and critical thinking necessary to succeed on the MCAT. Regardless of your opinion, the MCAT has already been shown to be a much better predictor than GPA. Most likely because there is no easy-mode MCAT; unlike so many easy-mode options when it comes to getting a high GPA.

I'm too lazy to find a study that shows how GPA predicts success, but

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17198300

brah a r of .39 is terrible

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Well I'm sure there is some test out there that measures someone's ability to endure long periods of mental stress. Or you could give people a really long test and use brain scans to measure how long the prefrontal cortex can maintain optimal activity. But nobody is going to ever do that as long as the MCAT costs 270 bucks and thousands of people take it every month.



1 variable by itself is different than 3 variables in combination.



Don't generalize. Because admission committees require applicants to take the MCAT doesn't mean that they all believe it is a predictor of success.

I wholeheartedly believe that success in 4 years of college (GPA) is the best available predictor of success in the next 4 years of college. Not a single test taken in one day.



Stupidest thing I've read in about 34 days.

Actually it's just easier to do a stroop congruency test, see how quickly it takes to mentally exhaust someone and then correlate it with step 1 and mcat performance.
I don't think there's any biochemical test for endurance, as it's not like we can just quickly check creatine- phosphate.

Also I agree to some extent. I've seen kids screw up massively on tests and do so much better on behavioral measures of things. And standardized tests are something different, they are designed to measure other things.

 

[SOMBound13]

Adcoms do. If you have 6000 candidates for 100 seats, you'd use any simple quantitative measures you could find to narrow that down.

And isn't that the point of setting up filters for initial downselection? A SOM might have...

Block all White males from going forward who don't have at least a 3.4 sGPA and 3.4 cGPA, no BS score less than 10, no PS score less than 10, and no V score less than 9...unless disadvantaged or come from XYZ states.

SOMs aren't likely going to have human eyes thoroughly reviewing 6000 apps with essays & LORs.

 

[MedPR]

I'm too lazy to find a study that shows how GPA predicts success, but

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17198300

brah a r of .39 is terrible

Yes, it's agreed that neither the MCAT nor GPA are excellent predictors of success. That doesn't take away from the fact that MCAT is a better predictor than GPA. Oh and btw, MCAT is r=0.6 for Step 1. Step 1 matters way more than pre-clinical grades if you didn't know.

http://medical-mastermind-community...ts-med-school-academics-better-than-uGPAs.pdf

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Yes, it's agreed that neither the MCAT nor GPA are excellent predictors of success. That doesn't take away from the fact that MCAT is a better predictor than GPA. Oh and btw, MCAT is r=0.6 for Step 1. Step 1 matters way more than pre-clinical grades if you didn't know.

http://medical-mastermind-community...ts-med-school-academics-better-than-uGPAs.pdf

I'm well aware. A pearson value of .60 is barely significant (depending on DF) if you didn't know.

and lol did you really just link to a study from the early 90's? GPA's of accepted students have increased just about every single year since 2001. That study means jack squat in 2013.

edit: and let's not even mention the huge flaw in study design in which n's range from 65 to 148 from 14 different schools. To even think that is a representative sample is outrageous.

 

[yellowfish]

I'm well aware. A pearson value of .60 is barely significant (depending on DF) if you didn't know.

and lol did you really just link to a study from the early 90's? GPA's of accepted students have increased just about every single year since 2001. That study means jack squat in 2013.

edit: and let's not even mention the huge flaw in study design in which n's range from 65 to 148 from 14 different schools. To even think that is a representative sample is outrageous.

Your argument, summarized: "Yes I am well aware that the MCAT is known to be a better predictor of success in medical school than GPA, but I still think GPA is a better predictor of success in medical school than the MCAT."

Well done.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Your argument, summarized: "Yes I am well aware that the MCAT is known to be a better predictor of success in medical school than GPA, but I still think GPA is a better predictor of success in medical school than the MCAT."

Well done.

Where in the hell did I say MCAT is known to be a better predictor of success in medical school than GPA? I just provided rationale to refute the study showing that it was and provided a study showing that it is a terrible predictor. If you're referring to where I said "I'm well aware", that was in response to "Step 1 matters way more than pre-clinical grades if you didn't know." If you read my next sentence right after that you would have known that.

lern 2 reed bro

 

[yellowfish]

Where in the hell did I say MCAT is known to be a better predictor of success in medical school than GPA? I just refuted the study showing that is was and provided a study showing that it is a terrible predictor. If you're referring to where I said "I'm well aware", that was in response to "Step 1 matters way more than pre-clinical grades if you didn't know." If you read my next sentence right after that you would have known that.

lern 2 reed bro

You sound really intelligent and reasonable right now.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

You sound really intelligent and reasonable right now.

Doesn't matter how I sound, what matters is the evidence that shows MCAT is a terrible predictor of success. But thank you for the kind words anyway 🙂.

 

[yellowfish]

Doesn't matter how I sound, what matters is the evidence that shows MCAT is a terrible predictor of success. But thank you for the kind words anyway 🙂.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=10001&article=00009&type=fulltext

"As would be expected, the contribution of the MCAT science score in predicting scores on the preclinical examination was more important than that of the science GPA."

"As expected from many earlier studies, MCAT scores were consistently more valuable than were undergraduate GPAs as predictors of performance on licensing examinations, supporting their continued use in selection decisions."

Enjoy.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=10001&article=00009&type=fulltext

"As would be expected, the contribution of the MCAT science score in predicting scores on the preclinical examination was more important than that of the science GPA."

"As expected from many earlier studies, MCAT scores were consistently more valuable than were undergraduate GPAs as predictors of performance on licensing examinations, supporting their continued use in selection decisions."

Enjoy.

refer to my link about ~10 posts up

and come on man, wtf is up with all of these old studies from the 90's? Come with something new and I'll give it the time of day.

edit: LMFAO this is from 1968 through 1997. You cannot seriously take that study as valid.

 

[yellowfish]

refer to my link about ~10 posts up

Which doesn't mention GPA in relation to the MCAT. Which is what we are talking about. Which you are now avoiding. Anyways, I'm done here.

Again, well done.

 

[SOMBound13]

Doesn't matter how I sound, what matters is the evidence that shows MCAT is a terrible predictor of success. But thank you for the kind words anyway 🙂.

not arguing, just wondering....

Do you mean, success in med school? success as a practicing physician?

If you mean success in med school, then GPA would seem to be needed to weed out the great test-takers who are lazy students.

If you mean success as physicians, then it might seem that the interview process is needed to weed out the crazies and those with poor social skills.

JMO...no facts offered to support... 😀

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Which doesn't mention GPA in relation to the MCAT. Which is what we are talking about. Which you are now avoiding. Anyways, I'm done here.

Again, well done.

check that edit then come back when you want to try to bring up studies. Until then, please refrain from attempted superiority because it doesn't work well for you Mr. Dizzle.

😀


not arguing, just wondering....

Do you mean, success in med school? success as a practicing physician?

If you mean success in med school, then GPA would seem to be needed to weed out the great test-takers who are lazy students.

If you mean success as physicians, then it might seem that the interview process is needed to weed out the crazies and those with poor social skills.

JMO...no facts offered to support... 😀

Success as a physician, really. Nobody cares how great you are in medical school if you're a terrible doctor in the real world, but of course success in medical school is required for success as a physician (sort of), so both.

I have a friend who came to class maybe once a month, aced every test and got into a pretty good medical school last year (starts in Fall 2013). No way to weed everyone out.

I agree with the interview being used to screen out people who are just generally weird, although we are all weird in our own ways.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Lolllll the MCAT is not standardized either. Some tests are significantly more difficult from others... and u cannot control for mood, health, family circumstances that can significantly affect a four hour exam.

Uhhhh.... The MCAT is a standardized test. That's the whole point. Everyone who goes into the test on Jan 26th got the exact same test.

Now, obviously, there will be some variation based on some of the things you listed above. But that is for the test-taker to control. AAMC has no responsibility for your mood, nutritional status, or other extenuating circumstances on the day of the MCAT. That's your job.

Honestly, i feel like people who argue for MCAT are those with high mcat scores and are bitter that people with lower scores are getting in.

So, basically what you're saying is that everyone who says the MCAT is a better indicator is merely bitter that people with lower scores get into med schools?

Wow. Nice job on the straw-man argument and insinuating that the entire argument is nothing more than a massive case of sour grapes. Well done on that.

Doesn't matter how I sound, what matters is the evidence that shows MCAT is a terrible predictor of success.

Terrible?

Everything I have read shows that the MCAT is the best indicator available. Sure, the correlations could be tighter. But you could say that about every metric used.

If the MCAT is a terrible indicator of future success, GPA must be downright horrific.

 

[HughMyron]

GPA can be gamed in so many ways. You really can't compare the GPA of the Chem Major from Cornell to the Film Studies (just an example, don't hate on it!) Major from State U. Even if we had 2 Chem Majors from Cornell, one might have taken easier professors, easier electives, had a death in the family in Soph year, whatever. So many other variables make GPA a very weak measure of what kind of student you are.

As an aside, it kind of amuses me to see poor test takers make justifications on why the MCAT is horrible, but somehow they never try to look at GPA the same way.


Here's the deal. The MCAT sucks. Especially VR. But the fact is that it's standardized, and it's the only way we have of comparing students with difficult courseloads to students with weaker ones. If you really think that your high GPA is proof of your work ethic, dedication, and perseverance, then you should be able to prove it through preparing for the MCAT.

If you can't, well, you can take the MCAT again, and prove it there.

If you still can't, well, you can take it again, and prove it there!

If you still can't, well, maybe you're just a ****ty student who gamed the system, and is mad that he can't game the MCAT.

 

[yellowfish]

Uhhhh.... The MCAT is a standardized test. That's the whole point. Everyone who goes into the test on Jan 26th got the exact same test.

Now, obviously, there will be some variation based on some of the things you listed above. But that is for the test-taker to control. AAMC has no responsibility for your mood, nutritional status, or other extenuating circumstances on the day of the MCAT. That's your job.





So, basically what you're saying is that everyone who says the MCAT is a better indicator is merely bitter that people with lower scores get into med schools?

Wow. Nice job on the straw-man argument and insinuating that the entire argument is nothing more than a massive case of sour grapes. Well done on that.





Terrible?

Everything I have read shows that the MCAT is the best indicator available. Sure, the correlations could be tighter. But you could say that about every metric used.

If the MCAT is a terrible indicator of future success, GPA must be downright horrific.

All true. Half of the arguments on this thread are absolutely ridiculous. Although to be fair most of those posts have been created by one particular author.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Terrible?

Everything I have read shows that the MCAT is the best indicator available. Sure, the correlations could be tighter. But you could say that about every metric used.

If the MCAT is a terrible indicator of future success, GPA must be downright horrific.

IF variance in GPA could somehow be accounted for based on difficulty of courses taken (it's impossible to do this) then I'm sure the numbers would show it to be better than the MCAT. Sadly, GPA's vary depending on way too many factors to account for. For instance, a 3.5 from Stanford is probably different from a 3.5 at Mississippi State University.

The MCAT is the only thing that all students have in common for comparison and that is why it is used.