MCAT and Intelligence?

[Dr Wannabee]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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.

 

[palmtree]

yes, i have taken organic chemistry. its nothing more than memorization of reactions. see the problem with people like u is that you memorize concepts and think that you are conceptual...that is not the case. midterms and finals are conceptual, but its pointless since u just memorize the concept.

i'm a 4th year neuroscience major at ucla, and i've taken advanced biochemistry. it doesnt matter what class it is...going to class and office hours is all it takes. you essentially find out what is on the exam, so u do well. crammers at the last minute dont know whats going to be on it, so they dont do well. the mcat gets rid of this and puts everyone on an even playing field since there is absolutely no way to predict whats going to be on it. it tests whether or not you are really a conceptual thinker who can handle information on the fly.

 

[45408]

yes, i have taken organic chemistry. its nothing more than memorization of reactions. see the problem with people like u is that you memorize concepts and think that you are conceptual...that is not the case. midterms and finals are conceptual, but its pointless since u just memorize the concept.

i'm a 4th year neuroscience major at ucla, and i've taken advanced biochemistry. it doesnt matter what class it is...going to class and office hours is all it takes. you essentially find out what is on the exam, so u do well. crammers at the last minute dont know whats going to be on it, so they dont do well. the mcat gets rid of this and puts everyone on an even playing field since there is absolutely no way to predict whats going to be on it. it tests whether or not you are really a conceptual thinker who can handle information on the fly.

How does knowing what's on the exam change anything? Lots of my professors post old copies of their exams online, and those are certainly no guarantee to success. As for organic chemistry, I don't believe you. Seeing how there's a literally infinite number of reactions, you can't memorize everything. End of story.

You really must have professors who give formulaic exams, because I've had exams in physics and organic that threw curveballs that would make the MCAT pale in comparison.

 

[gujuDoc]

How does knowing what's on the exam change anything? Lots of my professors post old copies of their exams online, and those are certainly no guarantee to success. As for organic chemistry, I don't believe you. Seeing how there's a literally infinite number of reactions, you can't memorize everything. End of story.

You really must have professors who give formulaic exams, because I've had exams in physics and organic that threw curveballs that would make the MCAT pale in comparison.

I believe its possible to memorize all the basic reaction schemes in organic, because a lot of them build on each other, so if you learn the patterns you can do it.

One more thing, in regards to the organic tests that pale in comparison to the MCAT.......

I don't think that is possible unless you are going to a school like Harvard, because a lot of teachers give you curves at the end that give you an A B C type of grade. Also once you know how the teacher tests, you know what to expect the rest of the semester.

However, with the MCAT, you have to know soooooooo much more info and then how to apply it and memorize it.

In fact you memorize a lot of more info with studying the MCAT than a single semester of organic, and apply it.



In regards to office hours and old tests......

Well knowing what's on the test doesn't really tell you how intelligent you are, cuz you may not really understand everything, and only understand the select things on the tests, instead of understanding everything.


As per office hours, some teacher's don't really do much in the way of helping during office hours. My physics teacher totally didn't help, it was the tutors that helped me get through that class.

 

[45408]

One more thing, in regards to the organic tests that pale in comparison to the MCAT.......

I don't think that is possible unless you are going to a school like Harvard, because a lot of teachers give you curves at the end that give you an A B C type of grade. Also once you know how the teacher tests, you know what to expect the rest of the semester.

Why would Harvard automatically be tougher? UW-Madison had a class where too many people got a 100 on the final in organic, throwing off the curve. If that doesn't scream ludicrous to you, I don't know what does. The guy I talked to who was in that class said that they didn't learn anything. I go to a lesser-known state school, and we knew our stuff inside out and backwards. My class wasn't curved except for something of a decile system on the final, and a lot of people just plain failed.

 

[H2O]

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.

Apparently, it's a better predictor of how you will do in the first two years of medical school. Its predictive abilities significantly taper off following the first two years.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

The MCAT is not an IQ test any more than an IQ test is an IQ test. They test too much knowledge and not enough logic.

The keys to success are logic or wisdom, knowledge, hard work, and oftentimes serendipity.

 

[QofQuimica]

My VR was a 14, and I can tell you that one of the things that really helped me is that my biggest hobby is reading. I was the kind of kid who read the back of the cereal boxes at breakfast. My mom and dad used to try to force me to read less and go out with my friends more. I didn't have a curfew as a teenager because it just wasn't necessary. Now I teach MCAT prep classes, and I think that one of the things that gives people problems with VR is that they don't read enough on their own. (Or if they do, they don't read any nonfiction.) I am constantly begging my students to read more to help them prepare for the test. The students I've seen who do well on VR tend to be nonscience majors, especially in subjects like philosophy or classics where they are used to reading and evaluating dense prose.

One other thing: it also doesn't hurt to be able to read quickly. 🙂

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.

 

[leechy]

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?

No one has (dared?) respond to Nutmeg's two outstanding posts, so I thought I'd just throw in my stamp of approval. 👍

 

[leechy]

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.

This is exactly my view of Gardner... good point. Gardner is a more subtle proponent of the politically comfortable "everybody is good at something" viewpoint.

I do agree with the idea that some real talents are not measured by standardized tests. But let's face it: those talents that are particularly relevant to the study of medicine ARE at least somewhat measured by the MCAT.

 

[45408]

My VR was a 14, and I can tell you that one of the things that really helped me is that my biggest hobby is reading. I was the kind of kid who read the back of the cereal boxes at breakfast. My mom and dad used to try to force me to read less and go out with my friends more. I didn't have a curfew as a teenager because it just wasn't necessary. Now I teach MCAT prep classes, and I think that one of the things that gives people problems with VR is that they don't read enough on their own. (Or if they do, they don't read any nonfiction.) I am constantly begging my students to read more to help them prepare for the test. The students I've seen who do well on VR tend to be nonscience majors, especially in subjects like philosophy or classics where they are used to reading and evaluating dense prose.

One other thing: it also doesn't hurt to be able to read quickly. 🙂

Well, I didn't score a 14! but I did do pretty well on my VR, and I too read an absolutely blistering amount when I was younger. I wish I had read more into high school, but the Internet, computers, and women kinda pulled me from that. People joke about reading the encyclopedia when you're a kid - I read two full sets of them. They were geared towards children, but still. I read all of Grisham and Clancy, as well as all the news and science mags that my parents would get. I kinda wish I was more interested in reading for pleasure these days. The last full-length book I read for fun was at least a year ago now. 🙁 I do read the newspaper quite often though, still.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

Well, I didn't score a 14! but I did do pretty well on my VR, and I too read an absolutely blistering amount when I was younger. I wish I had read more into high school, but the Internet, computers, and women kinda pulled me from that. People joke about reading the encyclopedia when you're a kid - I read two full sets of them. They were geared towards children, but still. I read all of Grisham and Clancy, as well as all the news and science mags that my parents would get. I kinda wish I was more interested in reading for pleasure these days. The last full-length book I read for fun was at least a year ago now. 🙁 I do read the newspaper quite often though, still.

I haven't taken the MCAT yet, but I've taken several practice verbal sections, scoring 14 three times and 15 once (this is without practice). I feel that if one can read economic/political analyses of the type one finds in The Economist or The New Republic and also heavy philosophy (which tends to be the densest reading) by the likes of Kant, Leibniz and Hume, then they'll be in good shape for the VR section.

An online acquaintance of mine scored a 40 on the August MCAT (yes, seriously; doesn't post here, though), and he said that he felt that his philosophy degree really helped him with the MCAT in general, not just the VR portion; from my experience with the verbal and science passages, I'd tend to agree-- extracting and analyzing information from the passages is of the utmost importance (coupled with the requisite scientific knowledge, obviously 😛).


EDIT: Whoops, almost forgot: The reason I quoted the above poster is because I don't feel that reading novels will help you prepare for the VR section, no matter the articulacy of the author. As I mentioned, extracting and analyzing information is crucial for VR passages, and novels and other fictionalized accounts generally do not contain theses, logical reasoning, or supporting clauses etc. that must be picked out, analyzed, and incorporated into a broader view of the work as a whole (as VR passages do) in order to answer questions. The closest I could imagine a novel coming is if the question asked about the motivation of the protagonist of a story; one could then construct a psychological profile of the main character and weigh the various factors contributing to his actions by way of some formula that would have to be developed based upon textual cues as to the protagonist's own priorities/experiences. Hope that made sense. 😛


In short, I just can't see how reading fiction would help, except for improving one's general vocabulary or ability to smoothly read various sentence structures, which is something many people have a difficult time with.

 

[45408]

In short, I just can't see how reading fiction would help, except for improving one's general vocabulary or ability to smoothly read various sentence structures, which is something many people have a difficult time with.

Speed-reading. 😉 I can read wickedly fast if I need to.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

Speed-reading. 😉 I can read wickedly fast if I need to.

Yeah, I didn't really consider that. 😛

 

[cooldreams]

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.

no IQ organizations recognize the mcat as a qualifying test. I know ppl who are tested genius' and scored 21 or lower, after having scored very high on other "recognized" tests. the mcat is mostly about knowledge. the time factor forces a person to be able to use that knowledge efficiently, but it still has little to no correlation to IQ.

hth...

 

[MoosePilot]

no IQ organizations recognize the mcat as a qualifying test. I know ppl who are tested genius' and scored 21 or lower, after having scored very high on other "recognized" tests. the mcat is mostly about knowledge. the time factor forces a person to be able to use that knowledge efficiently, but it still has little to no correlation to IQ.

hth...

I definitely don't think the MCAT measures intelligence.

I don't really think it just measures knowledge, either.

I think it measures a mix of knowledge and another skill that I'll call "test taking". I think that one is related to intelligence, but definitely not the same thing. I outscored most of my friends on the SAT, but we were all on the academic team together and most of them were far smarter than I am.

I don't think it's knowledge, because I scored well on it at the end of my Sophmore year, while only keeping a 3.2ish gpa. I might have some kind of freakish retention, but I don't think so

 

[Crake]

Ahh, to be doing my Western Civ core again. . .

To the list of Kant, Leibnitz, and Hume I would add Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Descartes:

Plato: "Gorgias," "Republic," "Phaedrus," "Theatetus"
Aristotle: "Politics," "Nicomachean Ethics," "Metaphysics,"
Cicero: "On Government"
Descartes: "Meditations"
Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason" (But not the whole thing!)

Plus, add some western classics:
Dostoevsky: "The Brother's Karamazov," "Demons," "The Gambler," and "The Double,"
Joyce: "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" (Don't waste time with Ulysses, read Dubliners instead)
Faulkner: "The Sound and the Fury," and "The Unvanquished"
Flaubert: "Madam Bovary"

These are just my personal suggestions of course, you can always just read excerpts from all of these, I personally like to stay away from contemporary stuff as 1.) it sucks; and 2.) its too simplistic to help better reading comp skills.

Oh, and read the New Yorker too--the cartoons may be lame, but the articles are unbelievable (and challenging). I also agree with whomever suggested the Economist--also nice.

 

[Nutmeg]

I haven't taken the MCAT yet, but I've taken several practice verbal sections, scoring 14 three times and 15 once (this is without practice). I feel that if one can read economic/political analyses of the type one finds in The Economist or The New Republic and also heavy philosophy (which tends to be the densest reading) by the likes of Kant, Leibniz and Hume, then they'll be in good shape for the VR section.

An online acquaintance of mine scored a 40 on the August MCAT (yes, seriously; doesn't post here, though), and he said that he felt that his philosophy degree really helped him with the MCAT in general, not just the VR portion; from my experience with the verbal and science passages, I'd tend to agree-- extracting and analyzing information from the passages is of the utmost importance (coupled with the requisite scientific knowledge, obviously 😛).


EDIT: Whoops, almost forgot: The reason I quoted the above poster is because I don't feel that reading novels will help you prepare for the VR section, no matter the articulacy of the author. As I mentioned, extracting and analyzing information is crucial for VR passages, and novels and other fictionalized accounts generally do not contain theses, logical reasoning, or supporting clauses etc. that must be picked out, analyzed, and incorporated into a broader view of the work as a whole (as VR passages do) in order to answer questions. The closest I could imagine a novel coming is if the question asked about the motivation of the protagonist of a story; one could then construct a psychological profile of the main character and weigh the various factors contributing to his actions by way of some formula that would have to be developed based upon textual cues as to the protagonist's own priorities/experiences. Hope that made sense. 😛


In short, I just can't see how reading fiction would help, except for improving one's general vocabulary or ability to smoothly read various sentence structures, which is something many people have a difficult time with.

I think that the important thing that literature/fiction can provide is that it can get you to think from a different perspective. I'd say that quite often, people only read non-fiction that they agree with, and as such, it does little to expand their perspectives. Reading fiction seems like a way to broaden your perspective. The Economist and the New Republic take for granted that the reader has a certain agenda/perspective, while fiction authors try to get into people's minds and show you different ways to see the world.

Not to mention Clancy will do far more for your being able to do well on the WS than Kant. It seems like the classic philosophers were trying to use as few periods as possible--that crap is so full of pointless run-on sentences that it baffles me. It seems that they feel a single thought has to be completed before they place the period, or they're being wasteful.

 

[Nutmeg]

Point-Counterpoint: The Space Program

According to The Economist, NASA is an Industrial Subsidy in Disguise
By Ben Pratchett
I grew up with the romantic notion that NASA is not merely a government agency, but an organization dedicated to bravely propelling the human race forward into a glorious future of scientific advancement and discovery. But after reading a recent article in The Economist, I have no choice but to question that idealistic view.

According to this piece, which ran, I believe, in the April 9 issue, NASA exists largely to provide an economic boost to the American aerospace industry, particularly Boeing. NASA gets away with this thinly veiled pork-barrel politicking, the piece contended, by distracting the public with "bread-and-circus" space missions that emphasize thrills over genuinely useful scientific discovery.

Case in point: the tremendously wasteful expense of sending humans into space. A robotic probe costs far less to launch than a human, does the work far more reliably and efficiently, lasts centuries with no food or air, and never needs to be brought back. But the massive public interest in manned space flight and the human drama it offers renders all that moot.

Consider the hoopla surrounding John Glenn's return flight to space. He got a ticker-tape parade and front-page coverage, but what did science actually gain? Meanwhile, how often does your favorite newscaster mention the Hubble telescope, a genuinely useful yet far less compelling tool of exploration?

The article noted that a reassessment of NASA's motives and goals is especially relevant now. As we speak, one of Christa MacAuliffe's fellow teachers is undergoing training to ride the shuttle in what the media are portraying as "the mission Christa never got to carry out." With all due respect to the families of the victims of the Challenger disaster, can we really justify the tremendous expense for what essentially amounts to a touching, movie-of-the-week photo-op? What exactly do we plan to learn from this shuttle mission? Will it lead to scientific advances that remotely begin to justify the exorbitant costs?

It's too bad the folks in Washington aren't likely to heed the lessons of this article, because it's time we started making NASA accountable for its wasteful, PR-driven expenditures.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooooh, Look at Me, I read The Economist!!!
By Glen Schraft
Eeeeeeuuuuuwww! The Economist says! The Economist says! I read The Economist! Aren't I cool? Aren't you impressed with me?

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

Oh, no! My brain just got larger! Help! I need more knowledge to fill up the new brains! Get me the new issue of The Economist at once! I can't live if I'm even remotely unaware of anything that is happening in the universe! I must have my weekly issue of The Economist, or I risk de-evolving into the sort of mouth-breathing rabble by which I am surrounded daily!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!

****in' prick.

 

[sshaltoni]

Point-Counterpoint: The Space Program

According to The Economist, NASA is an Industrial Subsidy in Disguise
By Ben Pratchett
I grew up with the romantic notion that NASA is not merely a government agency, but an organization dedicated to bravely propelling the human race forward into a glorious future of scientific advancement and discovery. But after reading a recent article in The Economist, I have no choice but to question that idealistic view.

According to this piece, which ran, I believe, in the April 9 issue, NASA exists largely to provide an economic boost to the American aerospace industry, particularly Boeing. NASA gets away with this thinly veiled pork-barrel politicking, the piece contended, by distracting the public with "bread-and-circus" space missions that emphasize thrills over genuinely useful scientific discovery.

Case in point: the tremendously wasteful expense of sending humans into space. A robotic probe costs far less to launch than a human, does the work far more reliably and efficiently, lasts centuries with no food or air, and never needs to be brought back. But the massive public interest in manned space flight and the human drama it offers renders all that moot.

Consider the hoopla surrounding John Glenn's return flight to space. He got a ticker-tape parade and front-page coverage, but what did science actually gain? Meanwhile, how often does your favorite newscaster mention the Hubble telescope, a genuinely useful yet far less compelling tool of exploration?

The article noted that a reassessment of NASA's motives and goals is especially relevant now. As we speak, one of Christa MacAuliffe's fellow teachers is undergoing training to ride the shuttle in what the media are portraying as "the mission Christa never got to carry out." With all due respect to the families of the victims of the Challenger disaster, can we really justify the tremendous expense for what essentially amounts to a touching, movie-of-the-week photo-op? What exactly do we plan to learn from this shuttle mission? Will it lead to scientific advances that remotely begin to justify the exorbitant costs?

It's too bad the folks in Washington aren't likely to heed the lessons of this article, because it's time we started making NASA accountable for its wasteful, PR-driven expenditures.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooooh, Look at Me, I read The Economist!!!
By Glen Schraft
Eeeeeeuuuuuwww! The Economist says! The Economist says! I read The Economist! Aren't I cool? Aren't you impressed with me?

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

Oh, no! My brain just got larger! Help! I need more knowledge to fill up the new brains! Get me the new issue of The Economist at once! I can't live if I'm even remotely unaware of anything that is happening in the universe! I must have my weekly issue of The Economist, or I risk de-evolving into the sort of mouth-breathing rabble by which I am surrounded daily!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!

****in' prick.

NASA: NOOOO!! we need NASA!! They're genuises!! Bush is gonna get us to MARS before those damn commies do!! the red planet can't fall into the hands of the reds!! BUSH '04 baby.

ECONOMIST: wow, I thought I was the only one!! Lord Smartingford's a wonderful chap. And his teeth are marvelous for a Brit, I'd say. Long Live the Queen!!!

 

[chiripero]

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.

I agree. Well, I'm not as far as you... yet. But still, I'm finishing up college now and it seems those who remain are the ones who have constantly studied and worked throughout the years. To me, genius=99% work, 1% smarts.

 

[CJMPre-Med]

To me, genius=99% work, 1% smarts.

I'd take slight issue with that statement. 😛 "Genius" = 100% smarts. "Achievement/Accomplishment" = roughly 50% smarts and 50% work.


A genius is a genius is a genius; all "work" (that is, the acquisition and application of knowledge) does is give a genius a larger canvas to paint on, so to speak-- it provides the knowledge base which the genius then draws upon to find interesting and novel relationships between things. Because, really, that's the definition of intelligence in my opinion: the ability to synthesize vast amounts of information and find unique, insightful, and interesting relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena. Einstein did that; so did Kant. Think of any person you could rightly call a "genius", and I'd wager that they've done this too-- and that's because it's part and parcel of what it means to be a "genius" (which is a word thrown around all too frequently imo). The essence of genius thus lies in creativity, though they also have incredible powers of comprehension-- but there are many "lower-level 'geniuses' " who have similar powers of comprehension; what separates these two groups is the intellectual creativity component imo.


It's the difference between Einstein and every other quantum physicist who can understand his theories. And there are thousands of them...but only one Einstein. This is my point-- those men may have similar powers of comprehension, but they are not necessarily geniuses.

 

[cooldreams]

I'd take slight issue with that statement. 😛 "Genius" = 100% smarts. "Achievement/Accomplishment" = roughly 50% smarts and 50% work.


A genius is a genius is a genius; all "work" (that is, the acquisition and application of knowledge) does is give a genius a larger canvas to paint on, so to speak-- it provides the knowledge base which the genius then draws upon to find interesting and novel relationships between things. Because, really, that's the definition of intelligence in my opinion: the ability to synthesize vast amounts of information and find unique, insightful, and interesting relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena. Einstein did that; so did Kant. Think of any person you could rightly call a "genius", and I'd wager that they've done this too-- and that's because it's part and parcel of what it means to be a "genius" (which is a word thrown around all too frequently imo). The essence of genius thus lies in creativity, though they also have incredible powers of comprehension-- but there are many "lower-level 'geniuses' " who have similar powers of comprehension; what separates these two groups is the intellectual creativity component imo.


It's the difference between Einstein and every other quantum physicist who can understand his theories. And there are thousands of them...but only one Einstein. This is my point-- those men may have similar powers of comprehension, but they are not necessarily geniuses.

its like when you are thinking, it is very vivid, or in other cases, you "skip steps" probablly done subconsciously, and then the next step(s)/answer come to the consciousness..

 

[Nutmeg]

I'd take slight issue with that statement. 😛 "Genius" = 100% smarts. "Achievement/Accomplishment" = roughly 50% smarts and 50% work.


A genius is a genius is a genius; all "work" (that is, the acquisition and application of knowledge) does is give a genius a larger canvas to paint on, so to speak-- it provides the knowledge base which the genius then draws upon to find interesting and novel relationships between things. Because, really, that's the definition of intelligence in my opinion: the ability to synthesize vast amounts of information and find unique, insightful, and interesting relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena. Einstein did that; so did Kant. Think of any person you could rightly call a "genius", and I'd wager that they've done this too-- and that's because it's part and parcel of what it means to be a "genius" (which is a word thrown around all too frequently imo). The essence of genius thus lies in creativity, though they also have incredible powers of comprehension-- but there are many "lower-level 'geniuses' " who have similar powers of comprehension; what separates these two groups is the intellectual creativity component imo.


It's the difference between Einstein and every other quantum physicist who can understand his theories. And there are thousands of them...but only one Einstein. This is my point-- those men may have similar powers of comprehension, but they are not necessarily geniuses.

I couldn't agree more.

You know, I think that it's also a bit silly to try to break it down anyways. Even for Einstein, much of the pondering he did was probably not something that he would consider "work," whereas the average student trying to understand his theories probably has to do a great deal of stuff that they would call "work." I think that the idea of trying to assign things according to a work/smarts dichotomy is largely the result of a social agenda to distinguish "natural talent" from effort. To me, a "natural talent" is nothing more than an innate disposition to practice. If I practiced as much at playing baseball as the top 5% of all major league players, I bet I'd be on a major league team right now. But I'd also bet that such practice would be more upsetting for me, and would feel more like work to me than it did for them. The difference between me and the average professional athlete is not an innate talent, but rather an innate disposition to develop a talent.

 

[tacrum43]

Hey all you SDN people. This is my first post, so please be nice. I've been reading this site for a few weeks, I think it's pretty helpful and entertaining too. Anyway, just wanted to say that I think the MCAT is much more of a knowledge test, and doesn't correlate with an IQ test. I got a 30 on the August MCAT, which is pretty good, but I also got into MENSA when I took their test (which, according to them, means my IQ is in the top 2%). Perhaps I'm not living up to my full potential since I only have a 3.4 🙁 Well, hope I still get into school someplace this year!

 

[Popeye]

The MCAT is the start of many systems of control used by the "money makers" in medical education to extort capital from the "payers" (i.e. med students, residents). The price tag on a medical education is growing like a guy in a nudie bar and its not going to plateau any time soon.

The reputation of a medical school affords it the "right" to charge egregious fees and the more reputable the higher the fees. (Application, secondary application, tuition, books, housing etc.) Nothing will change, as long as we continue to be measured by where we went to school, and not by your abilities.

So how do they justify this? By making you feel like you are not worthy of a top tier education. Even if you have the tools and the desire, you will not be welcome. And you will accept it, because you took the MCATs and only scored a 24.

It's funny, in my experience the students that get into med school by the skin of their teeth always turn out to be the best doctors.

 

[gujuDoc]

The MCAT is the start of many systems of control used by the "money makers" in medical education to extort capital from the "payers" (i.e. med students, residents). The price tag on a medical education is growing like a guy in a nudie bar and its not going to plateau any time soon.

The reputation of a medical school affords it the "right" to charge egregious fees and the more reputable the higher the fees. (Application, secondary application, tuition, books, housing etc.) Nothing will change, as long as we continue to be measured by where we went to school, and not by your abilities.

So how do they justify this? By making you feel like you are not worthy of a top tier education. Even if you have the tools and the desire, you will not be welcome. And you will accept it, because you took the MCATs and only scored a 24.

It's funny, in my experience the students that get into med school by the skin of their teeth always turn out to be the best doctors.

While this may be true there really is something else to take into account.

Unfortunately though not the best measure, the MCAT is the only thing that can give a standard for people regardless of what university they went to or other opps were available.

Secondly, it is a matter of we had to do it, now you too have to do it.

 

[Nutmeg]

The MCAT is the start of many systems of control used by the "money makers" in medical education to extort capital from the "payers" (i.e. med students, residents). The price tag on a medical education is growing like a guy in a nudie bar and its not going to plateau any time soon.

The reputation of a medical school affords it the "right" to charge egregious fees and the more reputable the higher the fees. (Application, secondary application, tuition, books, housing etc.) Nothing will change, as long as we continue to be measured by where we went to school, and not by your abilities.

So how do they justify this? By making you feel like you are not worthy of a top tier education. Even if you have the tools and the desire, you will not be welcome. And you will accept it, because you took the MCATs and only scored a 24.

It's funny, in my experience the students that get into med school by the skin of their teeth always turn out to be the best doctors.

Why single out the MCAT? I can't think of a single part of the education process that isn't bent on milking you for every dime your worth while breaking your spirit and forcing you to accept the notion that entrenched academics are gods and you owe them everything. Secondaries? "Please send us more money before we reject you." Text books? Yeah, we really need updates on kinematics every three semesters because Newton has done so much additional work in the past year that now needs to be included. Graduation ceremonies, conforming your thoughts to a professor's pre-conceived notions, inequitous grading that favors brown-nosers and cheaters, heirarchical structures that keep the ruling elites in power through mutual recognition, etc etc etc. Theoretically, there is no real need for school at all if you're literate, you have a library card, and apprenticeships were available. But the simple truth is that the mordern world is geared to create self-fueled burocracy at every point in every process. As far as standardized tests, the MCAT isn't the first anyone takes. Though I'm a freak who graduated college without taking the SAT (primarily because it was expensive, and that money would have come out of my largely-financially-dependent-selve's pocket), I still took and IQ test in the second grade, CTBS tests every year from K-12, the California Golden State Exam, the PSAT, and a placement test for math and English at the community college where I began my collegiate studies.

And how is standardized testing worse than grades? No one gets a high MCAT score by flirting with professors or by having parents with clout. Bash the MCAT all you want, but I'll go ahead and sound off on behalf of the many people--particularly those attending unexceptional undergraduates schools--for whom the MCAT is a saving grace. And the cost of the MCAT is less than a single plane ticket to attend a single interview at a single school that will reject your ass anyways.

Peace.

 

[Carbon]

I'll go ahead and sound off on behalf of the many people--particularly those attending unexceptional undergraduates schools--for whom the MCAT is a saving grace.

The MCAT is why I got into medschool. My GPA sucked, for a number of reasons. But rocking the MCAT got me interviews, and the interviews got me admissions. Period. I think standardized tests are great because there are no excuses. It's what you know and can do on that one day, just like everyone else across the country.

Hopefully it'll keep working out for me on boards.... 😱

 

[velo]

well i did pretty well on the MCAT, so i'm going to go out on a limb--yes, there is a direct, irrefutable, correlation between MCAT score and intelligence. Wait, I'll take it a step further, its causation. Intelligence causes you to rock the MCAT 😉

 

[velo]

Bash the MCAT all you want, but I'll go ahead and sound off on behalf of the many people--particularly those attending unexceptional undergraduates schools--for whom the MCAT is a saving grace.

ah yes, I just want to back up my boy Nutmeg on this one as well. There are not a lot of state school kids at my current med school... but even though most of my classmates might have fancier ugrad degrees, we all took the same test in april...The MCAT is a good chance to show the adcoms you can compete with the applicants at more prestigious ugrad institutions...

 

[cooldreams]

well i did pretty well on the MCAT, so i'm going to go out on a limb--yes, there is a direct, irrefutable, correlation between MCAT score and intelligence. Wait, I'll take it a step further, its causation. Intelligence causes you to rock the MCAT 😉

perhaps to an extent, but i still must disagree. i have scored in the genius level IQ range on 2 standarized tests that reported my testing level. i have completed and excelled at undergraduate and graduate electrical engineering programs. i have also taken the mcat and only got an average score. i must say that given that i did not take organic chem, biochem, microbio, etc, i think that i still did ok, but still not at all that stellar.

 

[gujuDoc]

Nutmeg,

I want to say that I understand where you are coming from. When it really boils down to it, you are right about GPA being inflated and not an accurate predicter.


To all others,

The MCAT may not be a perfect indication of intelligence but it puts everyone on a single playing field. Thus, it gives a better prediction of how people from some unknown school fair against those from a supposed top school. Or how one who had inflated gpas due to generous curves and grading scales compare to the person that had no real help.

 

[RAwe]

The mcat tests your intelligence aliright...it tests how smart you are to studdy your @$$ off for it

 

[Shrike]

The MCAT is why I got into medschool. My GPA sucked, for a number of reasons. But rocking the MCAT got me interviews, and the interviews got me admissions. Period. I think standardized tests are great because there are no excuses. It's what you know and can do on that one day, just like everyone else across the country.

Watching this forum, I conclude that there are excuses. Just not good ones.

Interesting the way the question that started this thread is usually phrased. It is an amusing question to what extent intelligence and MCAT are correlated, but I think it's not what's really on most people's minds. My unprovable hypothesis is that most people who wonder out loud about this sort of thing are, in the back of their minds, thinking about the extent to which MCAT predicts success, either in medical school or in medicine. And the med schools are probably wondering the same when they decide how to use the scores.

As discussed in other threads, the correlation between MCAT scores and performance in med school, at least early in school, is positive and fairly high. There is also a positive correlation between MCAT score and performance on the boards. If this is true, why do we worry so much about intelligence here?

Another poster notes that Mensa et al do not accept MCAT scores for admission, but that just suggests that they think the correlation with intelligence is not high enough, not that they think it's zero. (Once upon a time, and possibly still, Mensa did accept SAT scores, incidentally. So did several higher-IQ societies, e.g., Prometheus, until 1996 when the SAT got a lot easier at the top end of the scale so precision dropped.) It seems clear that there's more to the MCAT than raw smarts -- knowledge of the science helps, reading ability (in English) and speed help. Still, it also seems clear that smarts help a lot. Is this really up for debate?