MCAT and Intelligence?

[Dr Wannabee]

I'm trying to find a correlation to the MCAT and other academic work. I've always been a pretty smart guy and usually made better grades than 95% of the other students. My question is how does general intelligence relate to MCAT success. Are the really smart people the ones making the 25s and are the students that make 32 and above enormously gifted intellectualy or are they they just the really smart students. If anyone has an opinion I would love to hear it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I'm trying to find a correlation to the MCAT and other academic work. I've always been a pretty smart guy and usually made better grades than 95% of the other students. My question is how does general intelligence relate to MCAT success. Are the really smart people the ones making the 25s and are the students that make 32 and above enormously gifted intellectualy or are they they just the really smart students. If anyone has an opinion I would love to hear it.

i don't think there's a direct correlation. The MCAT is a lot of reasoning and i think practice also helps increase the score.

 

[dhoonlee]

.

 

[Medikit]

Sure there is correlation. A better question is what exactly does the MCAT test? It's not just knowledge and reasoning or else it wouldn't be timed.

AAMC says it best: The goal of the MCAT is to help admission committees predict which of their applicants will be successful in medical school. In addition, the MCAT can be used to help applicants who are not accepted to medical school determine the academic areas in which they may need further study.

One important thing to remember is that you aren't being compared to people like your classmates, the MCAT compares you with pre-med students. You may not be in the top 5% of pre-med students. Interestingly enough you seem to feel that your top 5% status is directly correlated with intelligence, when it in fact is not.

One thing that has interested me is the Verbal section. This section tests for reading comprehension, reasoning, and critical thinking. Yet many of the intelligent people I know struggle with this section. Some people say you can overthink this section but I'm not sure that's the case. If I had the chance to talk with some of the people on the forums who scored high in this section I'd really like to examine the way they approach the passages and questions and contrast them with those who score poorly in the section and with those who score ever so slightly above the median.

 

[schoolgirl]

-

 

[UseUrHeadFred]

This entire educational "experience" up until the Clinical years is an exercise in memorization, reading skills and endurance.

I would almost go as far as to say that intelligence in the classical sense would be a liability.

 

[dan0909]

allz i know is i did pretty well on the MCAT and medschool is kickin my butt

 

[Dr Wannabee]

This entire educational "experience" up until the Clinical years is an exercise in memorization, reading skills and endurance.

I would almost go as far as to say that intelligence in the classical sense would be a liability.

That's good because memorization is one of my strongest skills

 

[joelmamchur]

Of course there is a correlation....
But the problem arises when one tries to define intelligence. There are so many different kinds of intelligence that it is impossible to state what the correlation is. One must have book smarts, have good reasoning and analytical skills, but must also have many different abilities to do well. For example, one needs to be able to perform under stress, and be able to "manage one's emotions" (see Goleman's emotional intelligence). There is a reason why most I.Q. tests are questionable (see the Binet-Simon intelligence test(s)...), it is because such tests (the Mcat included), are context dependant. a score on the Mcat is also affected by luck (good testing day, interesting passages, etc.)....Overall, there are way too many factors pertaining to the Mcat to state a direct correlation.

 

[saronno]

The MCAT is not in any which way a measure of intelligence in my book. Having taken classes which discuss standardized testing, I've come to realize that testing is just a necessary evil and the only way to standardize the various ways colleges around the country grade their students. Every adminstrator, whether it is a elementary school principal or a school superintendent, needs some type of quantitative measurement in order to weed out students who are succeeding academically and those who are not. Of course, this is the easy way to measure academic competence and standardized testing has become the gold standard for much of education because of its relative ease and ability to assign a number or letter to a student.

Is this a fair measure of a student's capability? Of course not. There's no such thing as fair testing. Looking at the MCAT, you can see several flaws already. There's the economically disadvantaged student, who can't afford the prep classes to provide him or her with a strategy to excel at the test. There's also bias against individuals who may not have the language fluency but the knowledge to become doctors. Test makers can try and revise the test such that it becomes a better indicator of a student's performance but in the end you cannot assign a quantitative measure to something as ephemeral and elusive as "intelligence."

Furthermore, if you look at the work of Howard Gardner, you'd see that there may exist multiple intelligences. One individual may be a virtuoso on the violin and yet may not be able to score a 1600 on his or her SATs. Is this person any less intelligent than an individual who does score a 1600 on his or her SAT? Of course not.

I think I'm digressing but long story short, even test prep companies say that they can teach you how to take a test. So, it's not a measure of your intelligence, just how well you've learned the tricks of the trade.

That said, I still thank God for a test that shows me I'm not as big of a ***** as my undergraduate institution has lead me to believe.

 

[Birdman MD]

45 Iq = 45 Mcat.

 

[dwightbean]

45 Iq = 45 Mcat.

.. interesting.

 

[dhoonlee]

.

 

[New England Dad]

The MCAT is a measure of one's ability to do well on a timed, multiple-choice, multi-subject test. Yes, there is some measure of one's scientific knowledge base. But it doesn't measure laboratory skills, diagnostic skills, free-response thinking, open-ended analysis, communication skills, empathy, or any other desirable physician trait. The sad thing is, medical schools place a disproportionate weight on it, mainly to boost up there average MCAT scores I'll bet. My daughter had a 26 last year, and couldn't get the time of day. She spoke to admission officers and they said she wouldn't get in. One month later, she took the MCAT, and this week got her score of 33. Within 24 hours, she was invited to two interviews. Now, come on, how much did her real medical aptitude change in just two months? The sad thing is, she had a friend who had very poor communications skills. One medical school did not admit him outright, and told him it was because of his poor interview. Yet, in the end, he was admitted off the waitlist because of his high MCAT score. I no longer believe those fancy brochures and web sites that this medical school or that medical school looks at the "whole" application package. Baloney.

 

[Super Rob]

The MCAT is a measure of one's ability to do well on a timed, multiple-choice, multi-subject test.

Agree

Yes, there is some measure of one's scientific knowledge base. But it doesn't measure laboratory skills, diagnostic skills, free-response thinking, open-ended analysis, communication skills, empathy, or any other desirable physician trait. The sad thing is, medical schools place a disproportionate weight on it, mainly to boost up there average MCAT scores I'll bet. My daughter had a 26 last year, and couldn't get the time of day. She spoke to admission officers and they said she wouldn't get in. One month later, she took the MCAT, and this week got her score of 33. Within 24 hours, she was invited to two interviews. Now, come on, how much did her real medical aptitude change in just two months? The sad thing is, she had a friend who had very poor communications skills. One medical school did not admit him outright, and told him it was because of his poor interview. Yet, in the end, he was admitted off the waitlist because of his high MCAT score. I no longer believe those fancy brochures and web sites that this medical school or that medical school looks at the "whole" application package. Baloney.

Agree some more.

The test is pretty much a hoop you need to jump through. It certainly doesn't measure intelligence and it doesn't measure any of the other traits New England Dad referred to. The entire admissions process is full of hoops. The most frustrating element has got to be the MCAT because unlike what they do with poor communication skills, the admissions committee will not look past a low test score to see the "whole" applicant.

And once you're in med school, wait til you see how you're taught and evaluated and how career opportunities unfold or fail to unfold as the case may be.

Lotsa frustration. Lotsa standardized tests and bubble-filling. Not much of anything is straightforward and fair. Thank goodness there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Did some shaddowing this afternoon and interviewed people coming to see my office preceptor... despite all the BS it takes, I'm happy to be here.

In short, the MCAT is BS and doesn't really say much about your strength as a future doctor or scientist. Unfortunately, it's treated as if it does. Good luck to those preparing for it and those applying!

 

[ASDIC]

I think the MCAT is a knowledge based test, not an intellegence test.

I believe the MCAT is an intelligence based rather than a knowledge based exam. Remember most of the questions are based on passages they give you, so you have to use your intelligence to analyze the passage and choose the answer.

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

of course those who do $hitty will say it's everything but that it's a measure of intelligence. every standardized test is biased; they are biased against stupid people. the mcat helps to resolve appliants into four general categories;

those w/high gpa and high score-good work ethic and smart. likely to be accepted to a good school.

high gpa and low score-yeah they can regurgitate the molecular structure for dung beetle $hit up for a prof on an exam but are pretty clueless when it comes to solving novel problems. for those too nervous or battling illness or whatever that is why there is an oppurtunity to retake the exam. Those these people might be hard working they simply are not smart enough to trust with people's lives in their hands. given that iq is relatively static [you don't just wake up one day and you're einstien] they are considerably less likely to be accepted.

low gpa and low mcat-stupid and lazy or they thought they were taking the lsat. in any case it's time to think about law school.

low gpa and high mcat-those most interesting of folks. does the low gpa come from laziness or from working 40 hours a week to put themselves through school? the question med. schools face is do they have the work ethic to make it through med. school? for those who can demonstrate this they too are likely to end up in medical school.

 

[uproarhz]

The sad thing is, medical schools place a disproportionate weight on it, mainly to boost up there average MCAT scores I'll bet.

No they do it mainly because once you're in med school, they have another one of those standardized tests for you to pass. The whole system from high school to the end of med school is directed by the standardized test. Who has a good ability to pass the USMLE I and II? Peopls who did well on MCAT, and probably also did well in SAT. The point is that if you CAN do well on them, you might take them once, do crappy and realize woops "I got the wrong strategy!" So you go home, study more and get it next time... like your daughter. But if you take the test 4 times and each time you do below average, you will likely also do below average on the standardized tests you need to pass in order to become a doctor.

I am definitely not saying this is a good or the best way to determine who will make the cut per se. But if you are a med school worrying about your reputation as far as how many students are able to make it through the program it makes perfect sense to put so much emphasis on it.

 

[joelmamchur]

of course those who do $hitty will say it's everything but that it's a measure of intelligence. every standardized test is biased; they are biased against stupid people. the mcat helps to resolve appliants into four general categories;

those w/high gpa and high score-good work ethic and smart. likely to be accepted to a good school.

high gpa and low score-yeah they can regurgitate the molecular structure for dung beetle $hit up for a prof on an exam but are pretty clueless when it comes to solving novel problems. for those too nervous or battling illness or whatever that is why there is an oppurtunity to retake the exam. Those these people might be hard working they simply are not smart enough to trust with people's lives in their hands. given that iq is relatively static [you don't just wake up one day and you're einstien] they are considerably less likely to be accepted.

low gpa and low mcat-stupid and lazy or they thought they were taking the lsat. in any case it's time to think about law school.

low gpa and high mcat-those most interesting of folks. does the low gpa come from laziness or from working 40 hours a week to put themselves through school? the question med. schools face is do they have the work ethic to make it through med. school? for those who can demonstrate this they too are likely to end up in medical school.

Do you seriously believe this? There is no way that such things are so clear cut. There are way too mnay factors to consider to make such statements. In addition, define what a "low gpa" or "low Mcat" is......

 

[Nutmeg]

I have always found that IQ tests are easy - the MCAT is pure memorization - with the exception of VR. Although, when faced with a VR passage of familiar content? Passage based questions are not difficult at all, if you do not memorize requisite formulae? SOL...

No friggin' way. There was virtually no memorization at all on that test. It was primarily a reading comprehension test that expected you to be able to comprehend things from a broad range of scientific disciplines. If you want a memorization test, take a GRE subject area exam.

As for New England Dad's comment that it doesn't measure "free-response thinking, open-ended analysis, communication skills..." I disagree. It tests those things in the WS, some more than others, but that seems to be an item of little concern to most test-takers and adcoms.

I'd agree with the sentiment that it only measures some types of intelligence while neglecting others, but I think that Howard Gardner is a bit of a fraud who applies pseudoscience to promote a social agenda. You can talk about "musical talent" or even "musical genius," but Howie seems to want to apply the word "intelligence" to aspects of people to which the word was not meant to apply. The real issue to me seems to be that intelligence can often be put on a ridiculous pedastal, and far too many people seem to regard it as the end-all-be-all of human character. Intelligence doesn't make you better than anyone else, it just makes you more intelligent. But you don't need to bastardize the word "intelligence" to apply to all human virtue to avoid having to reassess your deification of intellect.

 

[bokbop]

of course those who do $hitty will say it's everything but that it's a measure of intelligence. every standardized test is biased; they are biased against stupid people. the mcat helps to resolve appliants into four general categories;

those w/high gpa and high score-good work ethic and smart. likely to be accepted to a good school.

high gpa and low score-yeah they can regurgitate the molecular structure for dung beetle $hit up for a prof on an exam but are pretty clueless when it comes to solving novel problems. for those too nervous or battling illness or whatever that is why there is an oppurtunity to retake the exam. Those these people might be hard working they simply are not smart enough to trust with people's lives in their hands. given that iq is relatively static [you don't just wake up one day and you're einstien] they are considerably less likely to be accepted.

low gpa and low mcat-stupid and lazy or they thought they were taking the lsat. in any case it's time to think about law school.

low gpa and high mcat-those most interesting of folks. does the low gpa come from laziness or from working 40 hours a week to put themselves through school? the question med. schools face is do they have the work ethic to make it through med. school? for those who can demonstrate this they too are likely to end up in medical school.

so, how did you do on the writing section?

 

[Dr. Josh]

It's about as reliable as any standardized test, like the SATs.

 

[bokbop]

low gpa and low mcat-stupid and lazy or they thought they were taking the lsat. in any case it's time to think about law school.

Have you actually tried the LSAT? The entire exam is verbal reasoning. 😱

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

so, how did you do on the writing section?

i got a q [75th percentile].

the lsat? i'm not particurly interested in law so to take it would be a waste of time and money.

 

[ttumed]

Was just browsing this thread for fun, and I'll tell you strait up the MCAT and every other test you'll take in med school or life is BULL****. I'm an MSIII by the way. I didn't do that great on it because I didn't study (29). To be quite honest there are some very, very smart people out there whos life goal is not to smash every test that comes along. You have to ask yourself what in life is important to you. If it is doing perfect on every test and obsessing about everything in med school, you are going to have a pathetic life. Make time for the stuff that really matters cause you'll surely only be young once. I'm 7th in my class now and scored a 99 on Step 1... I've learned to study since being in med school, but I still make time for other things. Don't worry so much.... it'll all work out in the end.

 

[bokbop]

Was just browsing this thread for fun, and I'll tell you strait up the MCAT and every other test you'll take in med school or life is BULL****. I'm an MSIII by the way. I didn't do that great on it because I didn't study (29). To be quite honest there are some very, very smart people out there whos life goal is not to smash every test that comes along. You have to ask yourself what in life is important to you. If it is doing perfect on every test and obsessing about everything in med school, you are going to have a pathetic life. Make time for the stuff that really matters cause you'll surely only be young once. I'm 7th in my class now and scored a 99 on Step 1... I've learned to study since being in med school, but I still make time for other things. Don't worry so much.... it'll all work out in the end.

Thanks...Where are you studying? Texas Tech? - If you do not mind my asking... I also did not study a great deal - 28R - two young kids with lots to do over the summer. Pleased and will shoot for state school. Also considering Ph.D. at Vandy (diabetes research - 6 year old with it). Thanks for your advice - I thoroughly agree.

 

[Ypo.]

The MCAT is a measure of one's ability to do well on a timed, multiple-choice, multi-subject test. Yes, there is some measure of one's scientific knowledge base. But it doesn't measure laboratory skills, diagnostic skills, free-response thinking, open-ended analysis, communication skills, empathy, or any other desirable physician trait. The sad thing is, medical schools place a disproportionate weight on it, mainly to boost up there average MCAT scores I'll bet. My daughter had a 26 last year, and couldn't get the time of day. She spoke to admission officers and they said she wouldn't get in. One month later, she took the MCAT, and this week got her score of 33. Within 24 hours, she was invited to two interviews. Now, come on, how much did her real medical aptitude change in just two months? The sad thing is, she had a friend who had very poor communications skills. One medical school did not admit him outright, and told him it was because of his poor interview. Yet, in the end, he was admitted off the waitlist because of his high MCAT score. I no longer believe those fancy brochures and web sites that this medical school or that medical school looks at the "whole" application package. Baloney.

Yay, NewEnglandDad! Thats awesome! I totally agree with you, and I don't think this gets said often enough.

Good luck to your daughter!

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

Was just browsing this thread for fun, and I'll tell you strait up the MCAT and every other test you'll take in med school or life is BULL****. I'm an MSIII by the way. I didn't do that great on it because I didn't study (29). To be quite honest there are some very, very smart people out there whos life goal is not to smash every test that comes along. You have to ask yourself what in life is important to you. If it is doing perfect on every test and obsessing about everything in med school, you are going to have a pathetic life. Make time for the stuff that really matters cause you'll surely only be young once. I'm 7th in my class now and scored a 99 on Step 1... I've learned to study since being in med school, but I still make time for other things. Don't worry so much.... it'll all work out in the end.

i'm calling shenigans here. if you got a 99 on step one and you're school didn't either just straight give you the boot or make you take every class over i'm a little concerned. with an average score of around 210 [and i think 190 or so to 'pass' step] there is no way that any school would promote you to ms iii with a 99. if you're gonna try to blow smoke up people's as$ at least give them courtesy of having your facts right.

and besides you scored a 248 according to this thread 🙄 time to g home troll boy: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=1691055#post1691055

 

[Medikit]

i'm calling shenigans here.

I think he meant 99th percentile

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

i could be wrong but all this guy's post are something to the effect of i didn't even study [or studied very little] and got an 'a' on this or that or i'm in the top 1% blah, blah, blah. the dude could be legit but it seems a lot like the kids who studied feverishly as an undergrad only to try to psych out others with 'dude i got so bombed last night' sort of crap.

 

[45408]

My daughter had a 26 last year, and couldn't get the time of day. She spoke to admission officers and they said she wouldn't get in. One month later, she took the MCAT, and this week got her score of 33. Within 24 hours, she was invited to two interviews. Now, come on, how much did her real medical aptitude change in just two months?

In her case? Not much. But how about the guy who got a 26 on his best effort, compared to your daughter who got a 33 on her best effort? There IS a difference. More people apply to medical school than can get in - PEOPLE MUST BE REJECTED. It's the nature of the game. We are all special beautiful unique flowers, but the schools can't sort through 4,000 applications that way. There has to be some sort of initial screening process to (a. ensure a basic level of competence (b. obtain people that will pass the USMLE the first time around (and the MCAT IS a predictor of that to an extent).

If you have two applicants with equal statistics and personalities except a five point discrepancy in their MCAT score, who would you let in? I bet there was no shortage of other qualified people applying for the same spots your daughter wanted, so they got in at first crack. She should get in this time around though.

Honestly, I'm sure most people with a 27 on their MCAT would be capable of being physicians, supposing the rest of the application was up to par, but if there are higher scores available, does it not make sense to choose those?

 

[gujuDoc]

of course those who do $hitty will say it's everything but that it's a measure of intelligence. every standardized test is biased; they are biased against stupid people. the mcat helps to resolve appliants into four general categories;

those w/high gpa and high score-good work ethic and smart. likely to be accepted to a good school.

high gpa and low score-yeah they can regurgitate the molecular structure for dung beetle $hit up for a prof on an exam but are pretty clueless when it comes to solving novel problems. for those too nervous or battling illness or whatever that is why there is an oppurtunity to retake the exam. Those these people might be hard working they simply are not smart enough to trust with people's lives in their hands. given that iq is relatively static [you don't just wake up one day and you're einstien] they are considerably less likely to be accepted.


low gpa and low mcat-stupid and lazy or they thought they were taking the lsat. in any case it's time to think about law school.

low gpa and high mcat-those most interesting of folks. does the low gpa come from laziness or from working 40 hours a week to put themselves through school? the question med. schools face is do they have the work ethic to make it through med. school? for those who can demonstrate this they too are likely to end up in medical school.

I disagree with your assessment.

You have to take into account those who have a high gpa now, like 5 yrs or more later, but who have a low overall gpa because they were lazy when they were young.

But now with a high gpa, and high MCAT, these people offer much more in the way of a good doctor. However, you fail to take into account, by a paradox they actually fall into the low gpa and high MCAT category because they a had a bad past.

 

[Steiner]

I'm trying to find a correlation to the MCAT and other academic work. I've always been a pretty smart guy and usually made better grades than 95% of the other students. My question is how does general intelligence relate to MCAT success. Are the really smart people the ones making the 25s and are the students that make 32 and above enormously gifted intellectualy or are they they just the really smart students. If anyone has an opinion I would love to hear it.

Check out www.emode.com it has free IQ tests, though im not sure how valid they are. then you can see how mcat & iq correlate.

IQ Tests

 

[gujuDoc]

I don't think either completely show a true telling of your intelligence, so much as how hard driven you are and your work ethic.

A person like my friend who had a 2.6 in her day has gotten a 4.0 in the past two years and a 34 MCAT.

Anyhow, she has studied harder and shaped her studying skills to learn how to approach problems since her youthful days.

On the other hand, another friend got a 3.7 gpa and without studying got a 30. So if he studied, theoretically he would have gotten at least a 34 or above, since his sciences were at 9's without studying.

So it all is in how much one puts into it.

Now if after studying as hard as possible, you still have a low gpa and mcat, then there may be a correlation.

So far most people I know got what they put into it.

 

[45408]

So far most people I know got what they put into it.

To an extent. Some people don't grasp things easily, so they don't put in the effort, so they never make it that far. I grasp things relatively easily, but in order to do well in some of these tough classes, I still have to put in a LOT of effort, and I think I'll make it as far as I want to go.

 

[gujuDoc]

To an extent. Some people don't grasp things easily, so they don't put in the effort, so they never make it that far. I grasp things relatively easily, but in order to do well in some of these tough classes, I still have to put in a LOT of effort, and I think I'll make it as far as I want to go.

Prowler,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. People who study and study hard as it takes for them to understand the concept and who do everything to get where they want to be will do well eventually.

However, if you just give up or stop looking at something when you don't understand it, then of course you are not going to do well.

But my point is if you put a lot of effort and go about studying in an appropriate way, you will pass.

 

[Crake]

Someone brought up the notion that there are many different "kinds" of intelligence, such as playing the violin, etc.

I'm sorry but if this theory is carried to its logical conclusion, then every skill one has is a form of intelligence. For example, if one type of "intelligence" is playing the violin, is then throwing a baseball another form of intelligence? How about painting, or making oragami figures, or being able to hold your breath for a really long time? When does a skill (or even a stunt) become yet another exhibit of one's true intellect?

I think a good defense for the idea that the MCAT (and other standardized tests) are indirectly intelligence tests is that they test intellectual abilities that are inherently a part of every human being, namely logical reasoning, spatial reasoning, and memorization. When it is all said and done, we all posess these abilities to different degrees; standardized tests are round-about means of finding and measuring those abilities and allowing for objective comparison.

The idea that we are all absolutely equal in intelligence, but demonstrate that intelligence through different outlets is insidious and its downright wrong. With respect to the notion of "multiple intelligences," a simple reductio demonstrates that if the premise is true, the conclusion that follows is absurd; there simply is no objective way to draw a boundary between intelligence and ability.

Now one may say "But Crake, you defined "intelligence" in terms of equally arbitrary terms, what makes your definition any better?" I would answer that all cognitive processes can be fit into these three categories: logical reasoning, spatial reasoning, and memorization. Since it is this cognitive process that sets human beings apart from other creatures, it is the best means for, pardon the term, interspecies differentiation. If we were to use musical ability or physical ability as criteria, there are other earthly creatures that could outdo us (for it is not absurd to argue that a cheetah is faster than a human being, or that a certain variety of bird sings finer than a human being) However, with the cognitive faculties as our objective criteria for "intelligence" we can differentiate between ourselves (I know of no other animal with a better memory than the dumbest human being I know and you can give the most "clever" or overtly intelligent animal a Rubiks cube, and they will never solve it).

Now the MCAT is basically a test of scientific knowledge. Many will say that it is therefore not an "intelligence" test in the purest form, even according to my criteria. But I would argue that to obtain and understand the knowledge that is tested in the MCAT, you must possess these cognitive skills. One will never understand, say, quantum mechanics or general relativity without having good spatial and logical reasoning skills. Furthermore, the degree of your intellectual proficiency will ultimately determine how well you assimilate and relate these bits of knowledge and recognize where they are appropriate on the MCAT. Hence, your score will reflect your ability.

 

[ElKapitan]

i could be wrong but all this guy's post are something to the effect of i didn't even study [or studied very little] and got an 'a' on this or that or i'm in the top 1% blah, blah, blah. the dude could be legit but it seems a lot like the kids who studied feverishly as an undergrad only to try to psych out others with 'dude i got so bombed last night' sort of crap.

I was that guy that got bombed most nights, I would tell people, they would smell the booze. I did not try to psych them out. Sometimes I got A's, some people laughed, some got mad. You sound like the guy that would get mad.

 

[BAM!]

i gotta agree w/ Prowler.

there has to be some way of seperating students. Someone might be more intelligent and score lower than someone who's less intelligent but scored higher on the MCAT.

...but this usually isn't the case, and adcoms need to use some method to figure out who to interview. unfortunately there aren't that many open spots, and they can't interview everyone.

 

[bella_dottoressa]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. People who study and study hard as it takes for them to understand the concept and who do everything to get where they want to be will do well eventually.

Right on.

Honestly, I'm sure most people with a 27 on their MCAT would be capable of being physicians, supposing the rest of the application was up to par, but if there are higher scores available, does it not make sense to choose those?

I don't know though guys. I've worked my butt off in undergrad to get a 3.5-3.6 GPA. I worked my ass off over the summer to pull off a 30 on the mcat. Basically I work harder than 95% of premeds just to be an average one. So who's a more attractive applicant; me, or the person who got a 4.0/37 because they're way more naturally smart than I and don't have to work nearly as hard? Probably them but I think the fact that I bust my ass for years just to have a remote shot at getting to where I want to be...I don't know, I think that says something and I think maybe it's something that would be attractive to someone looking at applications.

 

[Nutmeg]

It's amazingly disingenuous the way the the subject of tests always surfaces with complaints of the inability of tests to reflect intelligence. But pray tell, why is no one bitching about the fact that grades suffer from all the same limitations--in that they are largely based on test scores--and still grades suffer many other limitations? At least with a test like the MCAT, there's no whining to the professor about your score, there's no copying the homework off of your smarter friend, there's no access for some to old exams from the professor while many students have no such access, there's no grade inflation/grade deflation (ie the MCAT is standardized), and there's no brown-nosing.

If you want to get into some big epistemilogical debate on the limitations of human knowledge and the incapacity of assessing intelligience, then grades should come under as much or fire than standardized tests.

Grades clearly measure something, as do standardized tests. Are those two things the end-all-be-all measures of human intellectual capacity? Clearly not. But why do so many more people decry tests than decry grades?

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

I was that guy that got bombed most nights, I would tell people, they would smell the booze. I did not try to psych them out. Sometimes I got A's, some people laughed, some got mad. You sound like the guy that would get mad.

nah, i was the guy who drank you under the table only to make fun of 'wasted' you thought you were after two umbrella straw chick drinks. 😉

basically i have a low tolerance for bull$hit and this dude seems to be lighting up the bull$hitometer with what he's posting.

 

[Sunflower189]

MCAT = min(intelligence, work ethic, test-taking skills).

At least IMHO. Which makes it a reasonable test of success...it seems that med school works that way too.

 

[firebody]

MCAT = min(intelligence, work ethic, test-taking skills).

At least IMHO. Which makes it a reasonable test of success...it seems that med school works that way too.

hey there!! how's your first year at MIT treating you?

 

[firebody]

i'm calling shenigans here. if you got a 99 on step one and you're school didn't either just straight give you the boot or make you take every class over i'm a little concerned. with an average score of around 210 [and i think 190 or so to 'pass' step] there is no way that any school would promote you to ms iii with a 99. if you're gonna try to blow smoke up people's as$ at least give them courtesy of having your facts right.

and besides you scored a 248 according to this thread 🙄 time to g home troll boy: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=1691055#post1691055

you're a straight idiot man. what a dumba$$ that you actually took time to look him up. i think everyone here pretty much realized he was talking about 99th percentile.....

 

[palmtree]

the mcat is there because gpa's just measure your work ethic. thats it. anyone with half a brain could get a's in undergrad classes by following three simple steps: 1) go to class
2) go to office hours and find out whats on the test
3) study for midterms 2-3 days in advance

these three rules give you a tremendous advantage over the person who doesnt go to class, doesnt go to office hours, and studies the day before (roughly 50% of the class). You're already at a B assuming a bell curve. Does this mean you are smarter and more intelligent? in a sense yes, because you have the smarts to do the three rules. But in a sense no, because if other people did the same thing you did, they would blow you out of the water.

hence the MCAT, the only way to determine a person's intelligence and how well they handle stress. If you argue that it is not a measure of intelligence, you probably did bad on it. Quit your bitching.

 

[evajaclynn]

the mcat is there because gpa's just measure your work ethic. thats it. anyone with half a brain could get a's in undergrad classes by following three simple steps: 1) go to class
2) go to office hours and find out whats on the test
3) study for midterms 2-3 days in advance

these three rules give you a tremendous advantage over the person who doesnt go to class, doesnt go to office hours, and studies the day before (roughly 50% of the class). You're already at a B assuming a bell curve. Does this mean you are smarter and more intelligent? in a sense yes, because you have the smarts to do the three rules. But in a sense no, because if other people did the same thing you did, they would blow you out of the water.

hence the MCAT, the only way to determine a person's intelligence and how well they handle stress. If you argue that it is not a measure of intelligence, you probably did bad on it. Quit your bitching.

The amount you have to study definitely depends on your major, because most of my undergrad courses required a hell of a lot more studying than that. I also definitely don't agree that the MCAT is the "only way to determine a person's intelligence". That's completely ridiculous.

 

[Sunflower189]

hey there!! how's your first year at MIT treating you?

I really like it here. The classes are heavy on problem solving, and even the intros are worthwhile...in fact, I watched the sun rise this morning while doing physics. 😳 There are so many amazing role models, I don't know whose feet to worship at first. My room is infested with drosophila, and they aren't even mine. 😀 It's home.

Still not sure if I'm on the four-year plan or not...but I'm happy.

 

[45408]

I don't know though guys. I've worked my butt off in undergrad to get a 3.5-3.6 GPA. I worked my ass off over the summer to pull off a 30 on the mcat. Basically I work harder than 95% of premeds just to be an average one. So who's a more attractive applicant; me, or the person who got a 4.0/37 because they're way more naturally smart than I and don't have to work nearly as hard? Probably them but I think the fact that I bust my ass for years just to have a remote shot at getting to where I want to be...I don't know, I think that says something and I think maybe it's something that would be attractive to someone looking at applications.

Your work ethic may be good, and your stats sound fine for lots of schools. However, what if someone works EVEN HARDER than you, but only pulls a 3.2 and a 25 on their MCAT? Should we let them into med school because they tried hard? It sucks for them, but odds are they won't get in at many/any schools. Besides, the adcoms don't know if you busted your ass for a 30 versus the guy who snoozed his way to a 40 - you both look the same in an interview, so they'll be pretty much forced to opt for the better numbers.

 

[45408]

the mcat is there because gpa's just measure your work ethic. thats it. anyone with half a brain could get a's in undergrad classes by following three simple steps: 1) go to class
2) go to office hours and find out whats on the test
3) study for midterms 2-3 days in advance

these three rules give you a tremendous advantage over the person who doesnt go to class, doesnt go to office hours, and studies the day before (roughly 50% of the class). You're already at a B assuming a bell curve. Does this mean you are smarter and more intelligent? in a sense yes, because you have the smarts to do the three rules. But in a sense no, because if other people did the same thing you did, they would blow you out of the water.

hence the MCAT, the only way to determine a person's intelligence and how well they handle stress. If you argue that it is not a measure of intelligence, you probably did bad on it. Quit your bitching.

Yeah, no. Have you taken classes like organic chemistry yet? If you have, you can't seriously argue that most people could do well by simply doing those three steps.

Also, I argue that it measures your intelligence. To some extent, there may be a vague correlation, but certainly nothing near .8 or higher, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not bitching either - I did fine on the exam, but I don't think that it's nearly as strong as you suggest.