MCAT Inflation (verbal esp.)

[thewebthsp]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Just checked out some stats -- the MCAT (especially the verbal) is getting inflated --

April 2002
Mean Verbal 7.8
SD == 2.4

April 2003
Mean Verbal 8.2
SD == 2.4

Dammit.....!!!
Shouldn't have taken Aug 2002!!

 

[Jtak]

i think they decreased the number of verbal questions between 2002 and 2003. i took it 2002 and my verbal really dragged down my score. dammit

 

[thackl]

You're still scored against everyone else who took your test version. The only inflation is the number of top students taking it now due to the crummy economy (can't get jobs). The matriculating scores for many schools have been steadily increasing over the past 3 yrs (especially lower tier schools).

 

[Neuronix]

Don't make too many theories. I bet that it just has to do with the way the statistics worked out that year. Remember, it's graded on a curve and in theory the mean for each subsection is an 8. However, they have to draw the line on where the numbers fall so it probably just worked out best for the mean raw score to convert to 8.2. It will stay around 8.

 

[canadagirl]

I thought they introduced scores of 14 and 15 starting with the April 2003 MCAT, didn't they? If they had used a 13 for all "13-15" scores before, then that alone might have raised the average slightly.

 

[deez4life]

the august mcat almost always has lower averages than april. a lot (thousands) more retakers sit in the august exam, and the test admistration knows this, so can't be as rewarding as they are in april. otherwise, taking the test would be an unfair advantage in august since the lower-scoring retakers bump your percentile higher than it would have been in april.

also, the distinct difference between aug 2002 verbal and april 2003 verbal is primarily due to the change in scoring using 13, 14, and 15 as distinct scores in 2003.

 

[juddson]

I too have been thinking about the economy. My guess also is that the number of applicants to medical school will rise sharply because it is one of the few refuges from the poor job market. But, I was also thinking that the numbers mihgt not jump until next year because of the amount of preparation time it takes.

An easy way to find a trend is to look at how many people took the MCAT in 2002 and 2003 compared to historical averages. maybe somebody can post this.

Judd

 

[ncalcate]

I too was concerned about a "pop" in the number of applicants. Business and Law schools have seen huge increases in the past two years due to the poor economy. But given the huge prep time required for medical school, I expected to see a lag time of 2 to 3 years before there was an uptick in applications.

The number of people taking the MCAT is a great leading indicator. From aamc's site(http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/pubs.htm):

4/2001 N = 24,941
4/2002 N = 25,629
4/2003 N = 25,972

No huge increase yet! If we assume that the number of med school applicants correlates with the number of MCAT testers, then applicant numbers for this application cycle should be essentially the same as last year. Looks good for those of us applying for Fall 2004!

 

[basupran]

I now have 2 friends who are seriously considering ending their business careers to pursue medicine. These feelings came up recently, so it could be the bad job market pushing them to do what they wanted but weren't serious about earlier....uh oh...

 

[Entei]

Canadagirl was right about this, I think. In April 2002, the highest possible verbal score was 13 (actually a 13-15, but it's reported and counted as a 13). In April 2003, the highest possible verbal score was a full 15. I think this goes a long way toward explaining the "inflation" in the verbal scores.

 

[usmaple]

Originally posted by Entei
Canadagirl was right about this, I think. In April 2002, the highest possible verbal score was 13 (actually a 13-15, but it's reported and counted as a 13). In April 2003, the highest possible verbal score was a full 15. I think this goes a long way toward explaining the "inflation" in the verbal scores.

From the distributions they post, it looks like <100 people out of 25000+ total got a 14 or 15 on VR (.1% 15, .2% 14) in April '03. This would add less than .01 points to the average over just counting those same scores as a 13, so I think there must be more to it. I would guess that Neuronix's explanation is probably the best one, but who knows?

 

[thewebthsp]

The whole distribution shifted .4. The higher verbal scores (14 and 15) were not significant -- a LOT more people got 11, 12, 13 than before, and less people got scores below 8.2. Had the deviation decreased, then maybe you could say the higher scores did something to increase the mean.

Before:

7.8/10.2/12.6 (per deviations)

Now:

8.2/10.6/13.0

In other words almost 15% of test takers got an 11 or higher on 4/2003, whereas maybe 8-10 % got an 11 or higher before.

5% is 2500 people (in the whole april/august pool).