MCAT correlation with physician ability/quality

[JDAWG07]

In browsing the SDN MCAT and Pre-Allo forums, I have noticed that most people feel that one?s score on the MCAT is not indicative of the quality of doctor that they will become. While I feel this may be true ? to an extent ? I want to voice a different notion. SDNers generally believe that MCAT scores are important because they present a level playing field on which to compare applicants from different undergraduate institutions. In addition, studies have shown that MCAT scores correlate with success in the preclinical years of medical school and with scores on the USMLE boards. However, as it is often pointed out, MCAT scores are not indicative of performance in the clinical years of medical school. This is often taken as proof that the MCAT, which serves a purpose and is thus justified, is still by its nature a biased standardized test that weeds out would-be doctors simply to make the process of medical education more efficient and "fair".

Yet I would like to say that success in the clinical years of medical schools is often based on other factors unrelated to the quality of doctor one is destined to become. The factors may include: how much ass one is willing to kiss, how much time (and lack of sleep) one is willing put in, how much of one?s own humanity one is willing to sacrifice, etc? Although certain measures of performance in the clinical years are exam-based, much of the rest is subjective and based on the overall impression of the evaluator. For example, how accurately can an evaluator measure how well one connects with patients in the short duration of the clerkship. In addition, performance measurements may be skewed based on how one adjusts to the "caste system" of the hospital environment. Unless one pursues an academic career, much of this is not important.

Please do not misunderstand me. I feel that dedication and social awareness are very important. However, I just feel that medical school admissions committees put faith in the MCAT because it gauges more subtle qualities that aren?t easily evaluated during the short clinical clerkship, but are nonetheless important for physicians to have. The MCAT measures how well one uses their scientific knowledge and their intuition to process through new information in a timely and efficient manner. This is a very important trait for physicians. Despite physicians? reliance on concrete observations and hard evidence, judgment in the face of uncertainty involves a high degree of intuition. An ability to internalize all of the facts concerning a case and process through what is important and what is not, what symptoms are normal and which raise red flags, etc? This is exactly how the MCAT is designed: to make takers adjust to new information and intuitively put all of the information together to arrive at an answer. In addition, the test may, to a lesser degree, measure how one copes with stress. It even could be argued that the MCAT is a test of endurance, determination, and a measure of how many hours one is willing to put in ? how bad applicants really want to get in!

Anyone agree? Any thoughts?

I apologize for rambling on about this. I?m new to SDN and I?ll let everyone know that I have a tendency to do that. I have a significant case of ADD and most of the time, I like to scramble my thoughts into the computer just to organize things in my head. It doesn?t usually progress much beyond that.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MoosePilot]

I do think there is a tendency on this board for people to value the MCAT in relation to how well they did.

That being said, I don't think it has much to do with how good a doctor you'll be. That's unfortunate for me, because I'd love to have my quality already assured. I think a good doctor is intelligent, knowledgeable, curious, sympathetic, mentally tough, and patient. I know I've left off qualities. Each doctor is going to have these qualities in different measure - there's no one perfect template for a doctor. The MCAT may test elements of some of these, but it doesn't perfectly gauge any of them.

The MCAT is mostly just a hurdle to jump on your way to becoming a good doctor.

 

[jeatmonkey]

The MCAT is mostly just a hurdle to jump on your way to becoming a good doctor.

that was stated very well.. i completely agree that the MCAT is not an indicator of what kind of doctor you will be.. however, it does take into account how you analyze information.. which one day will affect our patients lives. Test taking ability aside I think adcoms are just trying to see how we react under certain conditions... The clinical years of training are a better way to judge how we will perform as doctors.. and after getting into medical school how we score on the MCAT will most definitly never come up again.. I dont know.. I'm rambling now too.. 👎

 

[MoosePilot]

... and after getting into medical school how we score on the MCAT will most definitly never come up again.. I dont know.. I'm rambling now too.. 👎

I don't know, I never thought the ACT/SAT would come up again and then they asked for it on my secondary application

 

[Jalby]

MCAT's is a good test to determine if you can become a doctor. The amount of knowledge you have to learn in medical school and use in medicine is amazing, and simle enough, I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

 

[principessa]

I agree, for the most part. There has to be some standardized measure to evaluate applicants, and the MCAT is probably the best thing that exists. How many people on here would like for med schools to use the GRE? It's so easy to get a perfect score on this exam, how would you distinguish the top scorers from one another? Perhaps we could all take the GRE subject tests in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, but wait, these tests are designed for people who've majored in these subjects, so some of us would do well on one or two tests, but many of us would do poorly on all of them. As much of a pain as it is, I think the MCAT is a good test for medical school applicants. I know that there are other factors besides intelligence that make a good doctor, but intelligence is important and it is much harder to fake than the other things.

 

[ColoMD]

As someone who has worked extensively with admission committees, I can tell you that the MCAT is only moderately important in the selection process for the majority of U.S. allopathic programs. As a general rule, the MCAT is weighed with the same importance as the GPA. These two factors together, then only make up a fraction (about a 1/3 or so) of the total factors taken into consideration.

Sure the MCAT assesses the ability to take a long gruelling test, to study hard, and shows an ability to develop a certain level of determination. These are the same skills which will be used heavily during medical school and for the USMLEs. But it really doesn't account for any of the humanistic components of what makes a good doctor. These are assessed from essays, activities, letters of rec, and the interviews.

 

[JDAWG07]

Just to comment on some of the posts people have entered? I would like to clarify that I do not believe that MCAT scores should be taken as indicators of the quality of doctors students will become. To do so would be unfair given that good physicians possess other qualities such as compassion, perseverance, altruism, and even manual dexterity. However, it is na?ve to think that the MCAT is not indicative of one?s potential and aptitude in certain areas of problem solving and reasoning. Areas that ARE essential to the making of a good physician.

I know that many of you like to think of the MCAT as ?just another hurdle.? However, I feel that such a mentality masks the purpose of the MCAT and the purpose of ?obstacles along the road to being a doctor?. I agree that the road to practice medicine is a long and difficult climb up an obnoxiously steep hill. There are winds and turns along the way and obstacles that are thrown at would-be doctors in an attempt to knock them off. Everyone on SDN knows that premedical students must ace their classes and rack up points for volunteering and clinical experience, community service, research, and interesting extracurricular activities. However, this is not a video game in which you are trying to achieve the highest score. These obstacles serve a purpose, individually and collectively. Individually, GPA and MCAT scores reveal essential elements of intelligence and EC activities provide evidence of well-roundedness, altruism, and a drive to enter medicine. Collectively, the ability to transcend the series of obstacles reveals determination and perseverance. I know that some of you may disagree with me or question the value of the long and arduous process that is medical education. I know that one?s individuality, family life, and humanity may even be sacrificed to some degree in the course of their training. But ask yourself this: When you step into a doctor?s office, don?t you want to be sure that that doctor is ?one resourceful son of a bitch??

 

[clowne]

MCAT's is a good test to determine if you can become a doctor. The amount of knowledge you have to learn in medical school and use in medicine is amazing, and simle enough, I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

What about people who don't do so well on the MCAT but still get into medical school and end up doing well on the USMLE? They must have a pretty good memory. I think the MCAT is an important hurdle but it's just another standardized test. What's really important is the amount of effort someone can put into medical school to be able to retain and apply a large amount of information.

 

[MoosePilot]

What about people who don't do so well on the MCAT but still get into medical school and end up doing well on the USMLE? They must have a pretty good memory. I think the MCAT is an important hurdle but it's just another standardized test. What's really important is the amount of effort someone can put into medical school to be able to retain and apply a large amount of information.

Exactly.

It also doesn't measure current motivation. A guy might be pumped up about getting into medical school, do well on the MCAT, get into medicine, get burned out, devote much less effort to his job, and basically suck. The MCAT is just a hurdle. You can't go to medical school unless you jump it. Jumping it well might say something, but barely getting over it doesn't rule you out for being a really great doc, either.

 

[velo]

I agree. When pre-med kids shadow, they often hear anecdotes from older physicians who claim "I did terribly on the MCAT and I don't think it has anything to do with the skills you need as a physician" but forget that the MCAT was radically reworked ~10-15 years ago (exact date someone?). The MCAT used to be a straight up "memorize and regurgitate" test, and we prove our ability to do that extensivly just by doing well in bio classes! The current incarnation of the MCAT is much better. With the passage-based questions, it does a lot to test your ability to process and analyze new information, as well as your ability to apply prior knowledge to new situations. So the MCAT tests analytical thinking skills, and this is certainly a valuable skill for a physician to have.

 

[leorl]

just to remind you...you can't become a doctor without the USMLE / COMLEX either...🙂 It doesn't end with the MCAT. And then once you've graduated, you'll have all sorts of nice liscensing exams to take. These are greater hurdles. I'm afraid at the end of the day, the MCAT isn't really high up on the hurdle list. I really don't mean to scare you or anything, you'll be fine.

 

[RaistlinMajere]

The MCAT is a good PREDICTOR for how you will do on the boards, nothing more.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

What a lot of applicants (esp. those with sub-par MCAT scores) seem to not realize or try to ignore is that the differentiation between the average med student and the average social work or nursing student on the grounds of empathy, compassion, interpersonal skills is nil. Most of the altruism-related points MD applicants write on their personal statements and secondaries would be equally valid responses for why you would want to go into nursing or social work. Forgive me for being a prick by stating this, but the main property that differentiates you as a doctor is the rigor of the academic program and intellectual requirements of medicine. The humanity and interpersonal requirements have been set up mostly because arrogance and a lack of regard for others are detrimental to good patient care.

However, the MCAT, the USMLE, board exams, are extremely important screening tools in establishing that future physicians are in fact the best and brightest. Being well-rounded is important too, but perhaps 1/3 of society is well-rounded. The fraction of that 1/3 I would want slicing me open or diagnosing my rare pathology is quite a bit smaller, and very well-correlated with intellectual ability and dedication to hard-work and intensity of training.

 

[skypilot]

Also depends on what kind of doctor you become. A rural family practitioner needs a different set of social skills from a surgeon at the Mass General. I think in general your performance on board exams is just a hurdle.

Your determination and skill development in the clinical years and in residency is far more important than performance on any written exam. The skill of a surgeon cannot be measured by a multiple choice exam.

 

[the other Dr.]

However, the MCAT, the USMLE, board exams, are extremely important screening tools in establishing that future physicians are in fact the best and brightest. Being well-rounded is imporant too, but perhaps 1/3 of society is well-rounded. The fraction of that 1/3 I would want slicing me open is quite a bit smaller, and very well-correlated with intellectual ability and dedication to hard-work and intensity of training.

Where do you live that 1/3 of society is well-rounded? I want to move there! Most Americans are only well-rounded in their waistlines.

Bottom line: People who don't do well on the MCAT complain that it's unfair and unrepresentative, which it is. People who do well claim that it is a good indicator of ability to be a physician, which it is. Schools that look at the whole applicant, not just scores, address both sides of the issue. I took the MCAT 3 times to "prove" myself to medical schools, and after finally doing well, I don't think I am very different from my first 2 attempts as far as my intelligence and abilities to be a physician, I am just out thousands of hours and dollars devoted to removing the only red flag from my app. Now that I "qualify" with a good MCAT, I still don't think it's a fair test. And if they ever test me on some f*cked up history passage in med school as an indicator of how well I will diagnose a patient, I might just go medieval 🙂

Seriously, there are many schools of thought on how valuable MCATs are, but it isn't going to make or break you to be below average. I have even heard that schools are suspicious of the 45T wunderkind! I think I would rather be sliced open by someone with a decent MCAT and a steady hand. How will the MCAT measure that, other than examining the precision of your bubbling? Actually, maybe they do that...

 

[the other Dr.]

I agree, for the most part. There has to be some standardized measure to evaluate applicants, and the MCAT is probably the best thing that exists. How many people on here would like for med schools to use the GRE? It's so easy to get a perfect score on this exam, how would you distinguish the top scorers from one another? Perhaps we could all take the GRE subject tests in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, but wait, these tests are designed for people who've majored in these subjects, so some of us would do well on one or two tests, but many of us would do poorly on all of them. As much of a pain as it is, I think the MCAT is a good test for medical school applicants. I know that there are other factors besides intelligence that make a good doctor, but intelligence is important and it is much harder to fake than the other things.

Well done, putting down the GRE and perpetuating the grad student/med student rivalry before matriculation. It's not THAT easy to get a perfect score...

And really, what's the difference between a 38 and a 43 on the MCAT? A few questions? A 43 is outstanding, as is a 38, and I have heard that once you get past an 11 or 12 in each section, you're pretty much equal with the more rare 13 or 14. So as for distinguishing between top scorers, the MCAT doesn't do much more than the GRE. It just measures different skills, exactly as the bio and chem GRE subject tests measure different skills.

 

[velo]

Well done, putting down the GRE and perpetuating the grad student/med student rivalry before matriculation. It's not THAT easy to get a perfect score...

And really, what's the difference between a 38 and a 43 on the MCAT? A few questions? A 43 is outstanding, as is a 38, and I have heard that once you get past an 11 or 12 in each section, you're pretty much equal with the more rare 13 or 14. So as for distinguishing between top scorers, the MCAT doesn't do much more than the GRE. It just measures different skills, exactly as the bio and chem GRE subject tests measure different skills.

anyone I've ever spoken to who has taken both the MCAT and the GRE has said that the MCAT is more difficult, hands down.

 

[jeatmonkey]

I don't know, I never thought the ACT/SAT would come up again and then they asked for it on my secondary application

really? what school.. thats ridiculous... secondaries 😕

 

[j0ker918]

Lol, I read the thread title to fast and thought it said "MCAT correlation with physical ability/quality." If that were the case, I would say definitely a strong correlation.

 

[jeatmonkey]

Where do you live that 1/3 of society is well-rounded? I want to move there! Most Americans are only well-rounded in their waistlines.

😍

 

[Code Brown]

Everyone should take the MCAT, as a physician needs to display a certain level of intelligence and academic ability. However, that said, it should be based on a pass/fail grading system. Either you make it, or you don't. They should have a cut off point somewhere, and if you pass, you are certified as being smart enough. Is someone who got a 35 smarter than someone with a 30. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe one took the whole semester off and studied, while the other person busted their butt working or taking a large course load and studied. And for that, the second person gets punished and looked down upon? I think that is the problem.

 

[velo]

Everyone should take the MCAT, as a physician needs to display a certain level of intelligence and academic ability. However, that said, it should be based on a pass/fail grading system. Either you make it, or you don't. They should have a cut off point somewhere, and if you pass, you are certified as being smart enough. Is someone who got a 35 smarter than someone with a 30. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe one took the whole semester off and studied, while the other person busted their butt working or taking a large course load and studied. And for that, the second person gets punished and looked down upon? I think that is the problem.

well...I think this is a little silly, and furthermore its completly impractical. Schools get thousands of applicants each cycle, and for better or worse, they need some sort of objective way to sort thru all of them. Lets say you make it pass/fail...well, presumably no one who fails the MCAT will apply, so now the MCAT is irrelevent to the application process. Everyone's the same, they got a "pass"

Your GPA is even more biased than your MCAT score, at least the MCAT is a standarized test...GPAs are based off of criteria that vary from school to school (the old is a 3.8 at state school X better than a 3.4 from a chem engineer at MIT? argument) so we should probably just have a minimum cutoff for GPA as well...above a certain number, you're "smart enough" you get a pass, below you fail.

So no MCAT, no GPA, and only the completely subjective PS/ECs/LOR portions of your application remain...how in the hell are the schools going to tell these students apart?!

Its OK for schools not to stress the importance of the MCAT...but Pass/Fail?! you've got to be joking.

 

[MoosePilot]

really? what school.. thats ridiculous... secondaries 😕

USUHS, although I've heard of several others that also ask for it.

 

[MoosePilot]

I agree with Velo that the MCAT shouldn't be pass/fail.

If one guy took off an entire semester, he'll have a high MCAT score perhaps, but he'll also lack some ECs that the other student participated in during that time. He may also be $1500 poorer, not even considering what he might have earned working during that semester. It's all a tradeoff.

I haven't thought standardized tests measure anything signficant since I took the SAT. I did well and many of my friends who were very definitely smarter than I am (I judged this from their performance in class and experience on an academic team with them), yet scored lower. I'm a heck of a test taker, but that doesn't neccessarily mean I'll be a good doctor. It's my motivation and my heart in addition to my reading comprehension and recall that will make me a good doctor.

 

[jeatmonkey]

USUHS, although I've heard of several others that also ask for it.

remind me not to apply there.. 😱

 

[MoosePilot]

remind me not to apply there.. 😱

Ok.

Don't apply there.

 

[jeatmonkey]

Ok.

Don't apply there.

phew... nice save... 😛

 

[yodaf]

I was told by the Dean of Admissions at a med school that they have spent years anlayzing all the admissions statistics for their students. He said that based on their analysis of MCAT scores and USMLE part one scores there is no certain relationship between MCAT scores and USMLE scores as long as the MCAT score is between a 24 and 38.

Bottomline, as long as the student had above a 24 MCAT they pretty much couldn't predict what they would get on the Boards, strange but true.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I was told by the Dean of Admissions at a med school that they have spent years anlayzing all the admissions statistics for their students. He said that based on their analysis of MCAT scores and USMLE part one scores there is no certain relationship between MCAT scores and USMLE scores as long as the MCAT score is between a 24 and 38.

Bottomline, as long as the student had above a 24 MCAT they pretty much couldn't predict what they would get on the Boards, strange but true.

This is such a load of crap it's mind-numbing. Of course, they couldn't predict the Step I score with "certainty." However, the correlation between MCAT and Step I has been shown to be ~.7, while the correlation between gpa and Step I score is more like ~.6. To argue that 70% of the variation of Step I scores being explained by MCAT score indicates that "as long as the student had above a 24 MCAT they pretty much couldn't predict what they would get on the Boards" is just plain wrong.

 

[velo]

This is such a load of crap it's mind-numbing. Of course, they couldn't predict the Step I score with "certainty." However, the correlation between MCAT and Step I has been shown to be ~.7, while the correlation between gpa and Step I score is more like ~.6. To argue that 70% of the variation of Step I scores being explained by MCAT score indicates that "as long as the student had above a 24 MCAT they pretty much couldn't predict what they would get on the Boards" is just plain wrong.

yeah, I find that dean's conclusion a little hard to believe, and in conflict with any and all published data I've ever seen on the subject.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

yeah, I find that dean's conclusion a little hard to believe, and in conflict with any and all published data I've ever seen on the subject.

Well, the reality is people can make up pretty much anything on internet boards. This is the like the student with a 45T MCAT who interviewed at Harvard and didn't get accepted because his interviewer concluded he had no social skills. I've read this damn anecdote at least twenty times on these boards, often presented as if the person personally knew the interviewing faculty, usually as part of a pathetic attempt to argue the MCAT score<-> personality/social skills negative correlation that is very popular, especially among those with sub-par stats.

 

[yodaf]

This is such a load of crap it's mind-numbing. Of course, they couldn't predict the Step I score with "certainty." However, the correlation between MCAT and Step I has been shown to be ~.7, while the correlation between gpa and Step I score is more like ~.6. To argue that 70% of the variation of Step I scores being explained by MCAT score indicates that "as long as the student had above a 24 MCAT they pretty much couldn't predict what they would get on the Boards" is just plain wrong.

Dude, you sound like an arrogant know it all premed. You may very well be right but the way you deliverd it makes you sound like a chode. So remember you want to be physician and arguing a statement you may consider wrong with class will differentiate you from the orangutan you sounded like in your reponse.

You should initiate an argument without making yourself sound like an arrogant *****. I give you credit for following with some statistics, but you're still rude.

Good luck dude you're going to need it.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Dude, you sound like an arrogant know it all premed. You may very well be right but the way you deliverd it makes you sound like a chode. So remember you want to be physician and arguing a statement you may consider wrong with class will differentiate you from the orangutan you sounded like in your reponse.

You should initiate an argument without making yourself sound like an arrogant *****. I give you credit for following with some statistics, but you're still rude.

Good luck dude you're going to need it.

So what's your response to his accusations that your post isn't quite true? Also, does that mean someone with a 40 is all set to go?

 

[yodaf]

So what's your response to his accusations that your post isn't quite true? Also, does that mean someone with a 40 is all set to go?

Excuse me, but what do you mean by accusations, I don't remember taking this issue to court. No wonder premeds are stereotyped as extremely aggressive and cut throat. How about when a person doesn't agree with someones view they deliver that disagreement with some l class. That tends to initiate a constructive discussion followed by a resolution. Party A or party B might turn out to be right but both parties benefited from the discussion.


If it makes you all feel better I admit the informtion I posted maybe wrong and on the other hand it maybe right. But in either case it's not worth being rude for!!!!

What is up with you people you're all so up tight. RELAX!!!!

 

[yodaf]

Oh by the way I didn't make my initial post up. It was stated by the Dean of Admissions at a Second day visit I attended. And he sounded pretty confident about it, so I believe him. Obviously he's not speaking for every medical school in the nation, just his. End of story

 

[yodaf]

Don't let anonymity get the best of good manners. 😡

 

[racystacey07]

What a lot of applicants (esp. those with sub-par MCAT scores) seem to not realize or try to ignore is that the differentiation between the average med student and the average social work or nursing student on the grounds of empathy, compassion, interpersonal skills is nil. Most of the altruism-related points MD applicants write on their personal statements and secondaries would be equally valid responses for why you would want to go into nursing or social work. Forgive me for being a prick by stating this, but the main property that differentiates you as a doctor is the rigor of the academic program and intellectual requirements of medicine. The humanity and interpersonal requirements have been set up mostly because arrogance and a lack of regard for others are detrimental to good patient care.

While I agree that there should be no differentiation between docs and nurses on grounds of empathy, etc., I am absolutely shocked that you had the balls to state that the difference between a doctor and a nurse is intelligence. What is this? And where do I live? Nurses work extraordinarily hard, save just as many lives, are smart to boot, and frankly, get very little reward or recognition for it. Doctors cannot do their jobs without nurses, and so it is essential to be a team player. I do think that the MCAT is an important part of the admissions process. With that said, I also do not think that it alone predicts how good of a doc you will be. It measures some aspect of intelligence--how you analyze and integrate material--which I do believe is valid, but there is a huge spectrum of important qualities that the MCAT does not measure. Some people here have mentioned that they would not want someone with a 24 MCAT to cut them open, but I can think of a few people with a 38+ MCAT that I would not let cut me open, either. Medical schools do a pretty good job of admitting bright students, but there are other characteristics that physicians must also have in conjunction with intelligence to be excellent. I have mucho personal and professional experience with doctors and medicine, and all I can say is that the good docs and the excellent docs were both extremely smart (in conventional terms). However, what separates the excellent physicians from those who are just "good", are precisely the qualities that the MCAT could never dream to measure.

 

[Mr hawkings]

MCAT's is a good test to determine if you can become a doctor. The amount of knowledge you have to learn in medical school and use in medicine is amazing, and simle enough, I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

I know people that scored in the 30s on the mcat but failed USLME step 1, and people that got mid 20s that passed well. Step 1 is a much more accurate indicator of what kind of doctor you are going to be than the MCAT, not to mention step 2 or step 3. From this forum, i have come to realise that a lot of premeds have no idea what they will go through in med school. It pisses me off so much when i hear people say that someone is somehow going to be a bad doctor cos they didnt get a 30 on the MCAT.

 

[deuist]

MCAT's is a good test to determine if you can become a doctor. The amount of knowledge you have to learn in medical school and use in medicine is amazing, and simle enough, I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

A 24 on the MCAT is hardly an indication of failure to learn material five years earlier. The MCAT is made up of a variety of subjects, many of which have nothing to do with medicine. An electrical circuit and the atomic nature of an atom have little to do with surgery, and even less to do a doctor's ability to talk to a patient and reason through a problem.

 

[deuist]

anyone I've ever spoken to who has taken both the MCAT and the GRE has said that the MCAT is more difficult, hands down.

The GRE was a joke. The questions all take the same format -- pick up the Kaplan book if you want to learn what that format is. Anyhow, I studied for two weeks leading up to the exam and aced two of the sections. The MCAT was so much more difficult. I'm sure that any medical student could do well on the GRE, regardless of his MCAT numbers.

 

[clowne]

Dude, you sound like an arrogant know it all premed. You may very well be right but the way you deliverd it makes you sound like a chode. So remember you want to be physician and arguing a statement you may consider wrong with class will differentiate you from the orangutan you sounded like in your reponse.

You should initiate an argument without making yourself sound like an arrogant *****. I give you credit for following with some statistics, but you're still rude.

Good luck dude you're going to need it.

And I suppose this post of yours doesn't have a rude tone to it? 🙄

 

[Jalby]

I know people that scored in the 30s on the mcat but failed USLME step 1, and people that got mid 20s that passed well. Step 1 is a much more accurate indicator of what kind of doctor you are going to be than the MCAT, not to mention step 2 or step 3. From this forum, i have come to realise that a lot of premeds have no idea what they will go through in med school. It pisses me off so much when i hear people say that someone is somehow going to be a bad doctor cos they didnt get a 30 on the MCAT.

Anecodal information. Always the best. Step 1 is a good indicator of how well you can learn stuff. MCAT's is a good indicator of how you will do on Step 1. A correlates to B. B correlates to C. A therefore correlates to C.

 

[yodaf]

And I suppose this post of yours doesn't have a rude tone to it? 🙄

Ah, Touche, but it wasn't a rude response, it was a snide one. When responding to a rude person one must scale the tone of their reponse accordingly for effect.

If my response seemed rude my apologies, but the arrogant "know it all" attitude is just so childish and worst of all poor form for a future physician.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

This is the way I see it:
If you do well on the MCAT or other standardized tests, you think its an excellent measure of ability to suceed in medical school.
If you do poorly, you think of it as a biased, useless test that doesnt measure anything but one's willingness to waste time studying for a lame test.
And of course these feelings vary. But someone who gets a 24 and wants to be a doctor will never agree that their MCAT score reflects their ability to be a sucessfull physician. Someone with a earns a 35 or higher will use it to reinforce their notion that they will be an excellent doctor. I dont think many minds will be changed through debate <shrugs shoulder>

 

[WatchingWaiting]

Dude, you sound like an arrogant know it all premed. You may very well be right but the way you deliverd it makes you sound like a chode. So remember you want to be physician and arguing a statement you may consider wrong with class will differentiate you from the orangutan you sounded like in your reponse.

You should initiate an argument without making yourself sound like an arrogant *****. I give you credit for following with some statistics, but you're still rude.

Good luck dude you're going to need it.

First off, everyone who posts here is not a pre-med. Med students have free time too. Second off, I get annoyed when people post stuff that is blatantly false, especially when it recurs over and over and over again. I have seen way too many people claim that the MCAT is some phony exam full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. It is certainly not the be-all, end-all indicator of whether or not you will be a great doctor. It is, however, a pretty good indicator of reading comprehension skills as well as knowledge and understanding of a substantial body of introductory science material at the undergraduate level. If a person can learn orgo and bio and the like pretty well, it follows that said person will probably learn pharmacology, anatomy, immunology, biochemistry, et al. and the subsequent synthesis and integration of a large body of knowledge as required for Step I and, subsequently, for competent clinical diagnosis pretty well too.

There are no doubt people who had marginal MCATs but stellar Step Is, and people with stellar MCATs but marginal Step Is. However, this is the exception and not the rule. Hence, 70% of Step I variation is explained by MCAT score, and 30% is not. The MCAT/Step II, III correlation (and the Step I/Step II, III correlation) is not particularly strong, which somewhat undermines my clinical competency argument; however, the fact that Step II has no impact on residency placement for people with good Step Is, but is sometimes viewed by people with poor Step Is as a way to compensate may explain some of this reduced correlation.

 

[yodaf]

First off, everyone who posts here is not a pre-med. Med students have free time too. Second off, I get annoyed when people post stuff that is blatantly false, especially when it recurs over and over and over again. I have seen way too many people claim that the MCAT is some phony exam full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. It is certainly not the be-all, end-all indicator of whether or not you will be a great doctor. It is, however, a pretty good indicator of reading comprehension skills as well as knowledge and understanding of a substantial body of introductory science material at the undergraduate level. If a person can learn orgo and bio and the like pretty well, it follows that said person will probably learn pharmacology, anatomy, immunology, biochemistry, et al. and the subsequent synthesis and integration of a large body of knowledge as required for Step I and, subsequently, for competent clinical diagnosis pretty well too.

There are no doubt people who had marginal MCATs but stellar Step Is, and people with stellar MCATs but marginal Step Is. However, this is the exception and not the rule. Hence, 70% of Step I variation is explained by MCAT score, and 30% is not. The MCAT/Step II, III correlation (and the Step I/Step II, III correlation) is not particularly strong, which somewhat undermines my clinical competency argument; however, the fact that Step II has no impact on residency placement for people with good Step Is, but is sometimes viewed by people with poor Step Is as a way to compensate may explain some of this reduced correlation.

As I said in my previous posts, my statement is not, repeat not blatantly false. The Dean of Admissions actually stated the lack of correlation between MCAT scores and USMLE part 1 scores at his school. So do not make an absolute statement when you are in no position to do so.

Your overall argument is valid. But you should try to deliver your statistical argument with a little bit of consideration to the human factors. Statistics are impressive but very hallow without a well rounded discussion to support your argument.

The MCAT is a hoop to jump through and doing well is important to getting your foot in the door. But the academic material in medical school is far from the material covered on the MCAT. In addition all the medical school coursework is directly focused on your final goal, so psychologically one is more motivated to to be focused on the material across the board in med school. Don't forget that alot of your medical school knowledge is learned through human interaction, there is no better motivation then seeing a case on rounds and being able to go home and study the material with that persons plight fresh in your mind: humanity is an awesome learning tool. Medical school is a totally different type of academic experience, the MCAT will be a blur once you start studying what you've been dreaming of.

Best of luck to everyone,

P.S. My MCAT are in line with the national average for matriculants so I'm not defending low MCAT scores because I have them, I don't, but just because there's much more to a good doctor. Not to say I wouldn't be concerned about an applicant with a 24 MCAT, they would have to have a great deal of other redeeming academic and personal characteristics.

 

[velo]

As I said in my previous posts, my statement is not, repeat not blatantly false. The Dean of Admissions actually stated the lack of correlation between MCAT scores and USMLE part 1 scores at his school. So do not make an absolute statement when you are in no position to do so.

With no published data to back him up... Have you considered that the dean may have been mistaken. Or more likely, you misunderstood the dean and are, in fact, overstating the dean's position?

The only study I'm aware of that studies the correlation between the MCAT and the USMLE Step I came up with the 70% figure that waitingwatching has been citing. Hearsay from a dean amounts to nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

 

[yodaf]

With no published data to back him up... Have you considered that the dean may have been mistaken. Or more likely, you misunderstood the dean and are, in fact, overstating the dean's position?

The only study I'm aware of that studies the correlation between the MCAT and the USMLE Step I came up with the 70% figure that waitingwatching has been citing. Hearsay from a dean amounts to nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

OK, this is the last time I will repeat myself. The Dean made the statement based on data that they have been collecting and analyzing for the past 6 years. I'm sure I didn't misunderstand him since I sat in the front row and was listening quite carefully to everything he said.

Yes the statement he made was not based on any statistics published in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, it was data that the admissions department collected.

Why do you insist on being condescending with this foolish statment --
"Or more likely, you misunderstood the dean and are, in fact, overstating the dean's position?" -- It's not cool to be rude, I thought we went over that earlier.

What are you guys twins or something? Why is this statement so upsetting to you? It's not as if the Dean insists the worlds actually flat.

 

[willthatsall]

OK, this is the last time I will repeat myself. The Dean made the statement based on data that they have been collecting and analyzing for the past 6 years. I'm sure I didn't misunderstand him since I sat in the front row and was listening quite carefully to everything he said.

Yes the statement he made was not based on any statistics published in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, it was data that the admissions department collected.

Why do you insist on being condescending with this foolish statment --
"Or more likely, you misunderstood the dean and are, in fact, overstating the dean's position?" -- It's not cool to be rude, I thought we went over that earlier.

What are you guys twins or something? Why is this statement so upsetting to you? It's not as if the Dean insists the worlds actually flat.

Was it the dean of a Caribbean school?