MCAT difficulty

[663697]

I often hear people saying "just crush the MCAT and you'll be in a good position to apply". Is it as simple as everyone makes the process out to be? I have a few friends who were always known for being pretty intelligent, and instead of crushing the MCAT, they ended up being crushed by it even after several attempts.

Just wondering what it really comes down to in order to "crush" this beast of a test. Does one's score eventually get capped based on intelligence, or is the quantity & quality of studying more of a factor in doing well?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MediocreGunner]

As someone who got a score in the mid 30's, I suggest you do a lot of practice tests. Doing great in your college prerequisite premed classes will help. I used examcrackers, princeton review, and kaplan for review books. But I also searched youtube for videos. There are some great resources in this website if you go to the MCAT section.

 

[Skydive Fox]

Best way to gauge yourself is taking practice tests... Intelligence and background knowledge is a huge part of it, but a lot of it also has to do with test-taking strategies, wrong answer pathologies, reading comprehension and efficiency, and ability to focus for extended periods of time. It's a lot like training for a marathon, actually. Taking my MCAT in a few days, so hopefully my training has paid off...

 

[aldol16]

It's some non-linear combination of studying and intelligence. I think the new MCAT is capped somewhat by intelligence but that's more of a deciding factor between 98, 99, 100th percentile scores, etc. In other words, studying and working hard will get you a high enough score to be equivalent to the top candidates when applying to top schools. There's no meaningful difference between someone who scores a 518 and someone who scores 520+. Both can handle medical coursework and that's all the MCAT is supposed to measure.

That said, statistics serve only so that you're not screened out. The other aspects of your application are very important.

 

[Hopeful_vet]

I think that if you're intelligent enough to consider yourself a decent applicant, you're intelligent enough to "crush" the MCAT. The rest comes down to your preparation and your skill at taking standardized tests.

That's just my personal opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

I think that people who say "just crush the text" are very naive as to how difficult it really is, either because they've never taken it, or did quite well on it.

While one's intelligence may be a limiting factor, to some extent this may be mitigated by how good you are at pattern recognition, and also how much work you put into preparation. I'm still appalled at how many people approach a high stake career deciding exam with either a very cavalier attitude, or are extremely foolish in the first place.

I often hear people saying "just crush the MCAT and you'll be in a good position to apply". Is it as simple as everyone makes the process out to be? I have a few friends who were always known for being pretty intelligent, and instead of crushing the MCAT, they ended up being crushed by it even after several attempts.

Just wondering what it really comes down to in order to "crush" this beast of a test. Does one's score eventually get capped based on intelligence, or is the quantity & quality of studying more of a factor in doing well?

 

[eteshoe]

The MCAT wasn't too different from the other standardized entrance exams I took (ACT/SAT/GRE). With decent intelligence, one could get a pretty solid score (e.g. 80th percentile) - with the occasional freak absolutely crushing the exam w/ little studying. With a good amount of studying+decent intelligence, a great score can be achieved (e.g. 90th percentile). And with a relentless amount of studying (usually in the form of tons of practice exams) + a bit more innate intelligence + a bit of luck, a crazy good score (i.e. 99th+ percentile) can be achieved.

Whenever I say "crush the MCAT", I usually mean scoring in the 85th-90th+ percentile for most MD applicants and 95th+ percentile for MD/PhD applicants. Overall, 'crushing' the MCAT will come down to properly studying, paying attention in your pre-req courses, and scoring consistently within your target zone on your last ~5 practice exams. Good luck with your preparations.

 

[aldol16]

The MCAT wasn't too different from the other standardized entrance exams I took (ACT/SAT/GRE). With decent intelligence, one could get a pretty solid score (e.g. 80th percentile) - with the occasional freak absolutely crushing the exam w/ little studying. With a good amount of studying+decent intelligence, a great score can be achieved (e.g. 90th percentile). And with a relentless amount of studying (usually in the form of tons of practice exams) + a bit more innate intelligence + a bit of luck, a crazy good score (i.e. 99th+ percentile) can be achieved.

I don't think a "relentless" amount of studying is required for a top score. I think it has more to do with knowing how to think scientifically and logically. Once one develops that skill, scoring high becomes much easier (though not easy on an absolute scale at all). For perspective, I did only about six FLs before the real thing and there are people on here who do like 10+ and people who take MCAT classes and all.

 

[LuluLovesMe]

I've always thought the MCAT was a pretty straightforward test. Learn the basic content, learn the ways MCAT test writers like to test the content, learn how they like to word correct answers and learn the common thought processes behind questions. Basically learn the content and then just follow the reasoning of the people who write the questions.

When I was teaching MCAT classes and my teacher evaluations came back, the biggest complaint was that I didn't spend enough time on difficult questions or that I trivialized the difficulty of finding the correct answer. This actually surprised me because I always thought that by quickly going through the "easier" questions we could focus on the more unique ones.

Now I'm not really sure how to teach the MCAT because the correct way to approach it really depends on how your brain is wired. To address OP's question: It might be easy or difficult for you. There's no way to tell until you take your first practice test.

 

[DingoPingo]

There is no real cap on intelligence. Anything can be learned by anyone given enough time and dedication.

You just need to remember that it's an incredibly important part of the medical school application, but in the end it's just a test. It's high-school level material, but it's like a super-comprehensive final that pretty much sums up all of the basic science information you need to have gathered throughout the years.

Don't worry too much about crushing the test. Figure out a reasonable number for you to reach for, and understand the test thoroughly while you study so that you don't waste time learning things that won't be on the test.

That being said, the MCAT is definitely not an easy test. Although the material is basic, there is so much material included that you need to have a lot of review and practice, and for most people, they will need to prepare themselves for the short amount of time available.

 

[Wolfpack93]

There is no real cap on intelligence. Anything can be learned by anyone given enough time and dedication.

You just need to remember that it's an incredibly important part of the medical school application, but in the end it's just a test. It's high-school level material, but it's like a super-comprehensive final that pretty much sums up all of the basic science information you need to have gathered throughout the years.

Don't worry too much about crushing the test. Figure out a reasonable number for you to reach for, and understand the test thoroughly while you study so that you don't waste time learning things that won't be on the test.

What? How can you explain people who study for 5+ months and get ~60th percentile and people who study for a month and get 99th? Also I don't remember learning ochem or biochem in high school. Must've missed that day...

 

[aalamruad]

There is no real cap on intelligence. Anything can be learned by anyone given enough time and dedication.

You just need to remember that it's an incredibly important part of the medical school application, but in the end it's just a test. It's high-school level material, but it's like a super-comprehensive final that pretty much sums up all of the basic science information you need to have gathered throughout the years.

Don't worry too much about crushing the test. Figure out a reasonable number for you to reach for, and understand the test thoroughly while you study so that you don't waste time learning things that won't be on the test.

That being said, the MCAT is definitely not an easy test. Although the material is basic, there is so much material included that you need to have a lot of review and practice, and for most people, they will need to prepare themselves for the short amount of time available.

Hate to break it to you, but it turns out that that's just not how genetics work. Maybe you're lucky enough to be the type of person who has such an enormous potential for intelligence that you won't ever have to worry about your cap, but I know plenty of people who simply don't have what it takes to do even decently on the MCAT, despite all the best resources and all the time in the world. Very sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

 

[aalamruad]

It's some non-linear combination of studying and intelligence. I think the new MCAT is capped somewhat by intelligence but that's more of a deciding factor between 98, 99, 100th percentile scores, etc. In other words, studying and working hard will get you a high enough score to be equivalent to the top candidates when applying to top schools. There's no meaningful difference between someone who scores a 518 and someone who scores 520+. Both can handle medical coursework and that's all the MCAT is supposed to measure.

That said, statistics serve only so that you're not screened out. The other aspects of your application are very important.

Agreed on all accounts except for the bolded (even though it's tough to disagree with someone who got a 526, if I remember correctly). While the MCAT may theoretically be capped by intelligence, in practice I'd be willing to bet that it's almost always capped by study time/study methods/study materials. Isn't claiming that the MCAT is capped by intelligence equivalent to claiming that everyone prepares for it equally and perfectly?

 

[DingoPingo]

What? How can you explain people who study for 5+ months and get ~60th percentile and people who study for a month and get 99th? Also I don't remember learning ochem or biochem in high school. Must've missed that day...

Yeah, you're right, the biochem and ochem were not part of high school. People all learn skills at different speeds; it depends on the person's cognitive level of function (which is different for each person), their motivation and dedication to the task, the resources and environment available, and the support from external sources. I didn't say people all have the same level of intelligence; I'm just saying there is no real cap on what can be achieved.

Hate to break it to you, but it turns out that that's just not how genetics work. Maybe you're lucky enough to be the type of person who has such an enormous potential for intelligence that you won't ever have to worry about your cap, but I know plenty of people who simply don't have what it takes to do even decently on the MCAT, despite all the best resources and all the time in the world. Very sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

I work with children with mental handicaps that need assistance with writing their names. Given enough time, I think they can ace the MCAT. It just might take a while (say a few decades).

When I say there is no cap on intelligence, I'm being super idealist.

 

[eteshoe]

I don't think a "relentless" amount of studying is required for a top score. I think it has more to do with knowing how to think scientifically and logically. Once one develops that skill, scoring high becomes much easier (though not easy on an absolute scale at all). For perspective, I did only about six FLs before the real thing and there are people on here who do like 10+ and people who take MCAT classes and all.

Certainly true with the logic part. I guess 'relentless' isn't the right word except in my case where I did ~10 FLs (definitely overkill but I had time) before I got sick of that exam. Though I do like to err on the super cautious side lol.

 

[aalamruad]

I work with children with mental handicaps that need assistance with writing their names. Given enough time, I think they can ace the MCAT. It just might take a while (say a few decades).

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. What about people who don't have the intellectual capacity to read quickly enough to get through even half of the passages in the test? At some level of intelligence, there simply aren't enough hours alotted to you during the test to perform even adequately, let alone to a standard that would be considered "acing the test"

 

[DingoPingo]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. What about people who don't have the intellectual capacity to read quickly enough to get through even half of the passages in the test? At some level of intelligence, there simply aren't enough hours alotted to you during the test to perform even adequately, let alone to a standard that would be considered "acing the test"

I'm serious. I don't believe in intellectual capacity. Reading, and the other essential parts of the test, is a skill that utilizes certain cognitive processes that can be improved and refined through the variables I listed before. I am a slow reader and I didn't read through a lot of the passages, but I was able to make up for it through skimming and pattern recognition.

I'm not saying anyone can crush the test without effort, but they can certainly improve and push their limits.

This is just my philosophy, YMMV.

 

[aalamruad]

I'm serious. I don't believe in intellectual capacity. Reading, and the other essential parts of the test, is a skill that utilizes certain cognitive processes that can be improved and refined through the variables I listed before. I am a slow reader and I didn't read through a lot of the passages, but I was able to make up for it through skimming and pattern recognition.

I'm not saying anyone can crush the test without effort, but they can certainly improve and push their limits.

This is just my philosophy, YMMV.

I respect that viewpoint, and I wish I held it too, but it just doesn't seem to be backed by any evidence, and actually is contradicted by a lot of research in science and psychology. But if you're taking more of a philosophical stance than a scientific one, then I get where you're coming from.

 

[ZedsDed]

it just doesn't seem to be backed by any evidence, and actually is contradicted by a lot of research in science and psychology.

Yup. Borderline flat-Earth territory, actually.

 

[aalamruad]

Yup. Borderline flat-Earth territory, actually.

Yeah, probably not such a good idea to turn a blind eye to science, but whatever motivates him/her and allows him/her to be encouraging and supportive of the special needs kids, though.

 

[NimbleNavigator]

I'm serious. I don't believe in intellectual capacity.

And I don't believe in differences in height...

 

[ZedsDed]

And I don't believe in differences in height...

That's different. Evolution doesn't apply to the nervous system silly rabbit.

 

[NimbleNavigator]

That's different. Evolution doesn't apply to the nervous system silly rabbit.

Oh my god PLEASE tell me you're joking

Edit: just read your previous posts... I think you're joking lol. What a relief.

 

[ZedsDed]

Oh my god PLEASE tell me you're joking

Isn't it wacko that we can't even tell anymore?

 

[NimbleNavigator]

Isn't it wacko that we can't even tell anymore?

Yup. We no longer have the catholic church, but we certainly do have the religion of political correctness.

 

[ZPakEffect]

It's some non-linear combination of studying and intelligence. I think the new MCAT is capped somewhat by intelligence but that's more of a deciding factor between 98, 99, 100th percentile scores, etc. In other words, studying and working hard will get you a high enough score to be equivalent to the top candidates when applying to top schools. There's no meaningful difference between someone who scores a 518 and someone who scores 520+. Both can handle medical coursework and that's all the MCAT is supposed to measure.

That said, statistics serve only so that you're not screened out. The other aspects of your application are very important.

This is very false. Statistics are the meat and potatoes. Everything else is frosting on the cake.

 

[aalamruad]

This is very false. Statistics are the meat and potatoes. Everything else is frosting on the cake.

It's actually very true for Aldol16 and other top applicants. When you have a solid GPA and a 520+ MCAT score, that gets you in the door of top-tier schools, at which point your stats become entirely irrelevant. Incredible stats are absolutely essential at top schools, and since everyone you're competing with for spots past the point of an II has similarly stellar stats, those schools only use EC's and interviews to differentiate between applicants. They're not going to take a 522 applicant over a 520 applicant if the 522 is a bit worse at interviewing, or has slightly worse research experience, etc. Maybe you're correct regarding mid- and lower-tier schools, though, where great stats are rare and coveted.

 

[NimbleNavigator]

It's actually very true for Aldol16 and other top applicants. When you have a solid GPA and a 520+ MCAT score, that gets you in the door of top-tier schools, at which point your stats become entirely irrelevant. Incredible stats are absolutely essential at top schools, and since everyone you're competing with for spots past the point of an II has similarly stellar stats, those schools only use EC's and interviews to differentiate between applicants. They're not going to take a 522 applicant over a 520 applicant if the 522 is a bit worse at interviewing, or has slightly worse research experience, etc. Maybe you're correct regarding mid- and lower-tier schools, though, where great stats are rare and coveted.

True but most people here are just looking for an acceptance to any MD school LOL

 

[ZPakEffect]

It's actually very true for Aldol16 and other top applicants. When you have a solid GPA and a 520+ MCAT score, that gets you in the door of top-tier schools, at which point your stats become entirely irrelevant. Incredible stats are absolutely essential at top schools, and since everyone you're competing with for spots past the point of an II has similarly stellar stats, those schools only use EC's and interviews to differentiate between applicants. They're not going to take a 522 applicant over a 520 applicant if the 522 is a bit worse at interviewing, or has slightly worse research experience, etc. Maybe you're correct regarding mid- and lower-tier schools, though, where great stats are rare and coveted.

He wasn't talking about having max stats. He was talking about having stats barely sufficient to avoid being screened out. So his statement is false as it is worded.

 

[aalamruad]

He wasn't talking about having max stats. He was talking about having stats barely sufficient to avoid being screened out. So his statement is false as it is worded.

Wow you're super super wrong. Read his post again, he was literally talking about 98th/99th percentile MCAT scores (max stats), the difference between 518 and 520 (essentially max stats), "top candidates when applying to top schools" (read: applicants with max stats), and your score only being capped by intelligence (again, essentially meaning max stats).

Edit: I think you may not realize how high the screening bar is for some top schools, i.e. auto-secondaries only being sent to applicants with 517+ (which isn't as extreme of screening as auto-rejection of low MCAT's, but is screening nonetheless)

 

[ZPakEffect]

Wow you're super super wrong. Read his post again, he was literally talking about 98th/99th percentile MCAT scores (max stats), the difference between 518 and 520 (essentially max stats), "top candidates when applying to top schools" (read: applicants with max stats), and your score only being capped by intelligence (again, essentially meaning max stats).

Edit: I think you may not realize how high the screening bar is for some top schools, i.e. auto-secondaries only being sent to applicants with 517+ (which isn't as extreme of screening as auto-rejection of low MCAT's, but is screening nonetheless)

Perhaps in the context of his post in isolation, his statement is true. However, the thread in general is not about top applicants applying to top schools. It is about the MCAT in general. So in the context of the thread as a whole, and because his post is in response to the OP, who is statistically unlikely to be a top applicant, his statement is false.

 

[aalamruad]

Perhaps in the context of his post in isolation, his statement is true. However, the thread in general is not about top applicants applying to top schools. It is about the MCAT in general. So in the context of the thread as a whole, and because his post is in response to the OP, who is statistically unlikely to be a top applicant, his statement is false.

Well the OP did specifically ask what it is that caps your potential MCAT score, which implies that s/he's asking about theoretical max stats on an individual basis (which are obviously likely to be max stats overall). But okay.

 

[aldol16]

Agreed on all accounts except for the bolded (even though it's tough to disagree with someone who got a 526, if I remember correctly). While the MCAT may theoretically be capped by intelligence, in practice I'd be willing to bet that it's almost always capped by study time/study methods/study materials. Isn't claiming that the MCAT is capped by intelligence equivalent to claiming that everyone prepares for it equally and perfectly?

It's quite all right to disagree with me - no one but the AAMC knows how or why I got my score. So I prefer to be judged only on the merit of my opinion, not on any qualifications that may or may not be deserved. Sure, I think in practice you may well be right. It might be that if one dedicates enough study time to it, anybody can get 520+. In fact, in my guide posted on here, I think I made that point - people think that getting 520+ is due to luck, but it's really not. But not everyone starts from the same place and it may well be impossible for someone who starts at a low level to dedicate any realistic amount of time to it to get a top score. Sure, maybe if he or she studied for a couple years, but what kind of life is that? Somebody who starts at a higher level, due to prior development of these key skills through years of practice, would need much less time. That's all I'm saying.

This is very false. Statistics are the meat and potatoes. Everything else is frosting on the cake.

I'm sorry you believe that. I have yet to see an applicant get in who has 4.0, 40 MCAT, zero volunteering, clinical experience, etc. This is the pre-med mindset that is so devastating to many pre-meds. There is nothing different in abilities between someone with a 3.7 GPA and someone with a 4.0 GPA - both can handle the rigor of medical school coursework. As someone who is intimately involved in assigning grades to large classes of undergraduate pre-meds, I often see cases where an A- student is actually more able than the A student but suffers a lower grade because he or she wasn't good at taking exams, the exam focused too much on memorization rather than scientific reasoning, the A- student was half a point away from an A but couldn't get it because the professor capped the number of A's given out. In terms of GPA, there's 0.3 gap, but that gap could largely be due to circumstances outside the student's control - maybe he or she got sick and missed two lectures that were tested extensively on the exam. That's why people with 3.7s are just as likely to get in as people with 4.0s, ceteris paribus.

On a side note, why do you think that Harvard's average GPA and MCAT are like 3.8 and 36? Don't you think Harvard could fill its incoming class with 4.0s and 40 MCATs if it wanted? The truth is, it doesn't want to. It values other things more than stats. Stats are only meant to show that you can handle the rigor of medical coursework. Beyond that, they're trying to answer the question of whether you will make a good doctor.

 

[ZPakEffect]

It's quite all right to disagree with me - no one but the AAMC knows how or why I got my score. So I prefer to be judged only on the merit of my opinion, not on any qualifications that may or may not be deserved. Sure, I think in practice you may well be right. It might be that if one dedicates enough study time to it, anybody can get 520+. In fact, in my guide posted on here, I think I made that point - people think that getting 520+ is due to luck, but it's really not. But not everyone starts from the same place and it may well be impossible for someone who starts at a low level to dedicate any realistic amount of time to it to get a top score. Sure, maybe if he or she studied for a couple years, but what kind of life is that? Somebody who starts at a higher level, due to prior development of these key skills through years of practice, would need much less time. That's all I'm saying.



I'm sorry you believe that. I have yet to see an applicant get in who has 4.0, 40 MCAT, zero volunteering, clinical experience, etc. This is the pre-med mindset that is so devastating to many pre-meds. There is nothing different in abilities between someone with a 3.7 GPA and someone with a 4.0 GPA - both can handle the rigor of medical school coursework. As someone who is intimately involved in assigning grades to large classes of undergraduate pre-meds, I often see cases where an A- student is actually more able than the A student but suffers a lower grade because he or she wasn't good at taking exams, the exam focused too much on memorization rather than scientific reasoning, the A- student was half a point away from an A but couldn't get it because the professor capped the number of A's given out. In terms of GPA, there's 0.3 gap, but that gap could largely be due to circumstances outside the student's control - maybe he or she got sick and missed two lectures that were tested extensively on the exam. That's why people with 3.7s are just as likely to get in as people with 4.0s, ceteris paribus.

On a side note, why do you think that Harvard's average GPA and MCAT are like 3.8 and 36? Don't you think Harvard could fill its incoming class with 4.0s and 40 MCATs if it wanted? The truth is, it doesn't want to. It values other things more than stats. Stats are only meant to show that you can handle the rigor of medical coursework. Beyond that, they're trying to answer the question of whether you will make a good doctor.

Most applicants don't live in the world of stratospheric GPAs and MCAT scores. Just take a look at any recent data and you can clearly see that for yourself. Hell, just common statistical sense ought to tell you that. Only on SDN do the idiosyncracies of Harvard and schools of its ilk become the standards by which applicants are judged.

I work as both a scribe and as an MCAT tutor and have talked to hundreds of pre-meds. The vast majority of them try to do way too much in terms of extracurriculars and their GPA and MCATs are lackluster. I have never met a 4.0 40, because there are only a hundred of those in the entire each year, but I would wager that they get into medical school at a far higher rate than the 3.5/25s of the world, who make up the vast majority of my pre-med acquaintances. The so-called 4.0/40 "automaton" bugaboo of SDN who is lacking in ECs would only fail to be accepted if they only applied to top schools. The 3.5/25 with ECs are likely to be rejected everywhere they apply because numbers are the primary determinants for the vast majority of candidates at the vast majority of schools.

So you are very wrong and you know it, and the data clearly shows how very wrong you are.

 

[Integral]

People also tend to underestimate that other people might not be entirely truthful about their MCAT experience, scores, GPAs, application process, etc.

The SDN bias is real in all of these areas.

 

[aldol16]

I work as both a scribe and as an MCAT tutor and have talked to hundreds of pre-meds. The vast majority of them try to do way too much in terms of extracurriculars and their GPA and MCATs are lackluster. I have never met a 4.0 40, because there are only a hundred of those in the entire each year, but I would wager that they get into medical school at a far higher rate than the 3.5/25s of the world, who make up the vast majority of my pre-med acquaintances. The so-called 4.0/40 "automaton" bugaboo of SDN who is lacking in ECs would only fail to be accepted if they only applied to top schools. The 3.5/25 with ECs are likely to be rejected everywhere they apply because numbers are the primary determinants for the vast majority of candidates at the vast majority of schools.

So you are very wrong and you know it, and the data clearly shows how very wrong you are.

I'm very sorry you feel that way. You obviously have an opinion and are entitled to it. But as many people before have pointed out, it feels increasingly like you're arguing against a straw man. A 3.5/25 is simply not competitive and would be screened out anyway. Read my posts. I have never mentioned a 3.5/25. The OP asked about the difficulty of the MCAT and since he/she has an SDN account, it makes sense to answer based on the typical SDN user and not based on the "average" applicant in your eyes whose average scores aren't going to get him or her in.

I maintain, again, that statistics are useful only to determine whether you are prepared for the rigor of medical coursework. They are not useful past that. Someone who scores a 25 on their MCAT is not prepared for medical coursework - you know this because schools screen at that level. I'm saying that applicants with 3.5-3.6 GPA and 30+ MCAT can handle medical coursework and whether they get into mid-tier med schools depends on their ECs and other variables. Applicants from a 3.7-4.0 GPA and 37+ MCAT are all very intelligent and can definitely handle medical coursework. Top schools obviously use other factors than stats to select these applicants because you don't see a 4.0/40 average at Harvard.

At lower-tier schools, I have no quarrel with you. Stats are very important but even then, applicants don't get in based on stats alone.

I'm not saying that one should do ECs at the expense of GPA and MCAT. I'm saying that past a certain point, GPA and MCAT are not useful. You must make sure you're above the cutoff and from there, your other experiences play a big role. Just head on over to the Pre-Med forum and ask some of the former adcoms on there.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

There were definitely some questions on my MCAT exam that needed some creative problem-solving skills. But even then, you still needed to know the background info before you can even begin to solve it. So I'd say it's about 50/50 capped on knowledge and reasoning skills. A "genius" won't be able to just walk into the exam and kill it without studying. Even in the CARS section, I can see someone who reads a lot of history or literature as having an advantage (especially since 7 passages were written by white, middle class males, I swear I looked them up right after).

 

[7331poas]

Eh, I score very high on the practice material I have worked through (not the real thing granted). My parents are a construction worker and a not particularly intelligent RN. Rural SES which no ties to anything academic. So nothing in my DNA that would point towards being intelligent or even a college graduate.

The difference is I had a strong work ethic in my college classes and other people did not. People with strong work ethics who apply themselves can do well on the MCAT. That is my personal anecdote.

 

[Lucca]

The only thing that really matters is that the MCAT is doable. It is not an insurmountable obstacle even though being a genius will obviously make it easier and being an idiot will make it a lot harder. Getting into a competitive score range (80%-ile and higher) is very doable for most who have done reasonably well in the relevant undergraduate coursework prior to taking the exam. If you know the content, are diligent, and only take the exam when you are adequately prepared then there is little to fear other than the occasional haymaker passage.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Really it just comes down to this.

If you were a reasonable solid student in college, most people I believe are capable of beating out at least 70-75 percent of the testing population. It takes some real flaws to get <40-50th percentile. It's basically <60% on those old AAMC exams which you can see for yourself if you google them youll find them.

The bottom 50 percent of the testing population has those flaws and you can almost throw out. Basically all that means is to get a 30(75th percentile) you need to beat half of the remaining testing pool. Beat 60% you get a 31. Really not that insurmountable if you were a solid student

When I see that 40% of people with 3.8+'s who apply each year cant hit 30 on the MCAT it just highlights poor preparation. Not taking the exam seriously enough, spending enough time on it, or not prepping correctly which is a very common mistake. Some people naturally just get destroyed by the verbal which tanks them but this isnt the reason most cant hit 30.

Where it gets difficult is beyond the 80th-85th percentile. You need to beat out 80% of "serious" pre meds to get a 33. 90% to get a 35. That's where it becomes more about natural ability. But to simply hit a competitive MD score around 30-31? Not really buying if you were a solid student in college in most cases you are incapable of it.

 

[Lawpy]

I often hear people saying "just crush the MCAT and you'll be in a good position to apply". Is it as simple as everyone makes the process out to be? I have a few friends who were always known for being pretty intelligent, and instead of crushing the MCAT, they ended up being crushed by it even after several attempts.

Just wondering what it really comes down to in order to "crush" this beast of a test. Does one's score eventually get capped based on intelligence, or is the quantity & quality of studying more of a factor in doing well?

There are many factors involved in excelling the MCAT but the most important ones are:

1. A calm and confident mindset
2. Very strong foundation in the subjects being tested
3. Very strong test-taking skills

The capping factor is probably innate intelligence. Or it's probably that the test takers treat the MCAT the wrong way consistently (i.e. memorizing all the tidbits rather than taking practice tests + reviewing). But factors #2 and #3 mentioned above aren't something developed in few months worth of study. It's something done over the long term throughout education. And that's where the distribution of scores is consistently seen because everyone doesn't start studying with an equal footing. This is also why people can destroy the MCAT with 40+/523+ with only 2 weeks of practice, while others fail to break 30+/508+ after months to years of studying.

 

[efle]

statistics are useful only to determine whether you are prepared for the rigor of medical coursework.

Not quite! High stats don't just predict passing step/graduating, but also correlate with step percentile. If you're a school that wants to send lots of people into competitive residencies, you want lots of people scoring well, and thus a 4.0/40+ is more attractive than a 3.6/30 even though both have nearly 100% pass rates.

Look at a school like WashU. They keep a median of 3.9/38. There is absolutely no chance they do that for their pass rates - they're interested in not just handling med school, but doing exceptionally well at it.

And honestly, those numbers are probably about as high as they can drive them without making major sacrifices in their student body. Only 1,000 people each year score 38+, and only about 60% of those have a 3.8+ GPA. If half of the 60% have a 3.9+, you're looking at about 300 students.

Many won't apply to WashU. Some will apply but have zero clinical experience, or zero research, or zero volunteerism, or bad letters and essays, or bomb interviews, etc. Many will get in but matriculate elsewhere. For WashU to be matriculating 60 of the 300 with high enough stats every year, they are probably admitting a big majority of high stats applicants that have the basics covered. After all, they have a 9% accept rate, less than 10% of their applicants have a 37+ equivalent, yet they maintain a 38 median. Unless their yield is insanely high, stats go a looooong way towards getting in.

/rant.

TL;DR: I suspect the process at some schools is less holistic and more "holistic*"

 

[GrapesofRath]

Not quite! High stats don't just predict passing step/graduating, but also correlate with step percentile. If you're a school that wants to send lots of people into competitive residencies, you want lots of people scoring well, and thus a 4.0/40+ is more attractive than a 3.6/30 even though both have nearly 100% pass rates.

While I think we can all agree this is true to some extent I have never really been able to find good strong consistent data on the idea that a higher MCAT such as a 37 vs 33 consistently correlates with better Step 1 performance. Do you know of any or have seen any?

From what I hear repeatedly from people high enough at the totem pole where they do have some legitimate insight/ info about Step 1 distributions across schools, theyve told me there are definitely top schools with lower Step 1 averages than youd expect. Of course hearsay like this hardly counts for a whole lot

 

[efle]

While I think we can all agree this is true to some extent I have never really been able to find good strong consistent data on the idea that a higher MCAT such as a 37 vs 33 consistently correlates with better Step 1 performance. Do you know of any or have seen any?

From what I hear repeatedly from people high enough at the totem pole where they do have some legitimate insight/ info about Step 1 distributions across schools, theyve told me there are definitely top schools with lower Step 1 averages than youd expect. Of course hearsay like this hardly counts for a whole lot

What I usually see is stuff like "MCAT Composite to Step 1 correlation .65" which I assume spans the full range. Don't recall seeing breakdowns by strata like that.

Does that top school underperformance refer to schools like UCSF with tippy top reputation but lower class stats, or to schools like Penn and WashU that you'd expect to be on top from their admissions stats?

 

[aldol16]

Not quite! High stats don't just predict passing step/graduating, but also correlate with step percentile. If you're a school that wants to send lots of people into competitive residencies, you want lots of people scoring well, and thus a 4.0/40+ is more attractive than a 3.6/30 even though both have nearly 100% pass rates.

Look at a school like WashU. They keep a median of 3.9/38. There is absolutely no chance they do that for their pass rates - they're interested in not just handling med school, but doing exceptionally well at it.

If you read my entire post, I'm not comparing 3.6/30 vs. 4.0/40+. I was very careful to say that somebody with a 3.5-3.6 and 30+ MCAT is capable of handling med school and so they would have a shot at the mid-tier schools. Realistically, that "30+" should be around 33-35 for a mid-tier school. If your stats are there, your ECs and personality are going to determine your success. At a place like WashU or Harvard, you need higher stats to be competitive for the very reason you say. They are looking for people who will excel and be future leaders in their field. So they're naturally going to set a higher bar - i.e. they want a measure of how likely you are to excel in med school rather than only a measure of whether you can handle med school. So at those places, you'll see the bar higher - at, say, 37+ MCAT. Again, if Harvard or WashU really only cared about statistics, they could fill their entire class with 4.0/40 MCAT. But they don't. That should tell you a lot about what they're looking for.

Overall, what I'm saying is that whether you get into medical school at all depends on your stats but only up to a point - i.e. the point where you show that you can handle medical coursework. That's all the stats are supposed to measure. Whether you get into a top medical school depends on your stats up to a point - i.e. the point where you show that you are likely to excel at medical coursework. But past these points, it's up to your ECs and personality to get you through. That's why a 4.0/40 is by no means a guarantee at a top medical school. I have yet to see a candidate get into a top program with 4.0/40 and weak ECs/personality/etc. My PhD program is affiliated with top med program so I see a lot of future M1's come through (mostly MD/PhD candidates but also some MD only) as well as pre-meds who feed into the top programs.

 

[aldol16]

TL;DR: I suspect the process at some schools is less holistic and more "holistic*"

This might be interesting to you.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...top-schools-from-those-to-lower-ones.1199778/

 

[NimbleNavigator]

Eh, I score very high on the practice material I have worked through (not the real thing granted). My parents are a construction worker and a not particularly intelligent RN. Rural SES which no ties to anything academic. So nothing in my DNA that would point towards being intelligent or even a college graduate.

The difference is I had a strong work ethic in my college classes and other people did not. People with strong work ethics who apply themselves can do well on the MCAT. That is my personal anecdote.

Just because you're a construction worker or an RN you must not be very bright? I think it's sad that you would think that. Someone like you should know better than to judge people by their titles.

I suspect that you are seriously underestimating your parents' intelligence.

And if not, there are short people with tall kids - so it happens.

 

[Thoroughbred_Med]

Hate to break it to you, but it turns out that that's just not how genetics work. Maybe you're lucky enough to be the type of person who has such an enormous potential for intelligence that you won't ever have to worry about your cap, but I know plenty of people who simply don't have what it takes to do even decently on the MCAT, despite all the best resources and all the time in the world. Very sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

+1 !!!

I consider myself relatively intelligent but not near intelligent like the 90% ile stats of students that apply to med school. I graduated college ~ 4.0 GPA and struggled immensely with the MCAT.
27 (9/9/9) on my first attempt. Put in over 500 hours of prep.
508 on my second attempt. Put in over a 1000 hours of prep.

YMMV. The MCAT was the biggest setback in my life so far. I have come to accept that, however, I still know there's nothing else I'd rather do than serve as a physician.

So for all practical purposes, I do not believe one can simply put in the hours and "crush" the MCAT (if we are talking 90th percentile and above). I do believe they could achieve the 75th percentile.

 

[aalamruad]

Eh, I score very high on the practice material I have worked through (not the real thing granted). My parents are a construction worker and a not particularly intelligent RN. Rural SES which no ties to anything academic. So nothing in my DNA that would point towards being intelligent or even a college graduate.

The difference is I had a strong work ethic in my college classes and other people did not. People with strong work ethics who apply themselves can do well on the MCAT. That is my personal anecdote.

Google "polygenic traits," my friend. You were lucky to get a good combination of intelligence genes from the (possibly) overall mediocre ones that your parents had the potential to offer you. Environment also plays a huge role in intelligence; perhaps your parents had the genes to be brilliant, but didn't have environmental factors/upbringings/etc that were conducive to academic success.

I'm not discounting the importance of your work ethic, but you're lucky to have the potential for academic success nonetheless.

 

[7331poas]

Google "polygenic traits," my friend. You were lucky to get a good combination of intelligence genes from the (possibly) overall mediocre ones that your parents had the potential to offer you. Environment also plays a huge role in intelligence; perhaps your parents had the genes to be brilliant, but didn't have environmental factors/upbringings/etc that were conducive to academic success.

I'm not discounting the importance of your work ethic, but you're lucky to have the potential for academic success nonetheless.

My problem here is that you can hand wave anything with that line of reasoning. There is a very grey line between what genetics can prevent you from doing and what is possible through strong work ethic and applying yourself.