MCAT is correlated to Step 1 scores.

[Jalby]

It seems to have been 6 years since one of these posts were done. Someone stated that there isn't a correlation between MCAT and USMLE. This is a pretty big study that says there is. People who tend to do good on the SAT also do good on the MCAT also do good on the USMLE and also tend to do well in life. I'm kind of shocked that people even question this.

Undergraduate Institutional MCAT Scores as Predictors of USM... : Academic Medicine

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jalby]

Another study showing a correlation between MCAT and USMLE.

The relationship between parental income and academic performance of medical students. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[narla_hotep]

No duh. Why is this thread even a thing?

 

[Overthink]

It seems to have been 6 years since one of these posts were done. Someone stated that there isn't a correlation between MCAT and USMLE. This is a pretty big study that says there is. People who tend to do good on the SAT also do good on the MCAT also do good on the USMLE and also tend to do well in life. I'm kind of shocked that people even question this.

Undergraduate Institutional MCAT Scores as Predictors of USM... : Academic Medicine

Man, I didn't know standardized exams are considered a community service activity.

 

[Jalby]

No duh. Why is this thread even a thing?

It's a recurring theme here in SDN. Pre-meds who believe that they had a bad day rather than other people actually did better than them. I did a search for this data and I actually found my own post from 13 years talking about the exact same thing.

 

[Jalby]

*****

The link between MCAT scores and USMLE scores isn't strong.

*****

The picture and words above was a post by a pre-med on a now closed thread.

 

[Major procrastinator]

this is all BS. Hard work=good step 1


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[narla_hotep]

this is all BS. Hard work=good step 1


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Yes, but hard work also = good mcat. Sometimes someone may have done mediocre on the mcat and really shaped up for step 1, but really they're both based on a combination of intelligence and the effort you put into them.

 

[I'm On My Way Up]

this is all BS. Hard work=good step 1


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Hard work also = good MCAT score. If you're someone who puts in the effort to do well on the MCAT then you're likely to do the same to perform similarly on the step 1 exam.

Edit: narla beat me to it

 

[Jalby]

Edit: narla beat me to it

Your profile picture was my almost roommate second year of college. I screwed up my paperwork and ended up somewhere else

 

[narla_hotep]

Hard work also = good MCAT score. If you're someone who puts in the effort to do well on the MCAT then you're likely to do the same to perform similarly on the step 1 exam.

Edit: narla beat me to it

Yes but you explanned the thought much more coherently

 

[Major procrastinator]

Yes, but hard work also = good mcat. Sometimes someone may have done mediocre on the mcat and really shaped up for step 1, but really they're both based on a combination of intelligence and the effort you put into them.

You guys are right, hard work can equal good scores on both tests. I guess the truth is you need the intelligence factor regardless.

if the intelligence is there, your capacity to do well will always be there if you work hard.

whereas if the hard work is there but you lack that next level of intelligence you may pass but most likely wont get near average or excel.

the only way you get a major difference in MCAT vs USMLE is laziness and not that you magically got smarter.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Major procrastinator]

my MCAT was baddddd, my step 1 is a 232. The difference? I was lazy and didn't work hard for MCAT at all.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[810390]

my MCAT was baddddd, my step 1 is a 232. The difference? I was lazy and didn't work hard for MCAT at all.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

interesting

 

[deleted781806]

It's a recurring theme here in SDN. Pre-meds who believe that they had a bad day rather than other people actually did better than them. I did a search for this data and I actually found my own post from 13 years talking about the exact same thing.

I thought the criticism stemmed more from correlating MCAT and professional income, rather than between the MCAT and USMLE (some posts were exceptions to this, obviously). They all intuitively make sense, people who are good test-takers and apply themselves well will do just fine on the MCAT and those skills translate directly to success on the USMLE. The latter's scores open up opportunities for higher-paying specialties, which increases profession lifetime income. But the problem is that there are a lot of other factors that go into all of these transitions throughout training and life and boiling it down to one variable (MCAT/USMLE score) seems to be oversimplifying things.

 

[efle]

When I looked into this in the past the best I found was a meta analysis with this handy table:

 

[mwsapphire]

Okay I can understand the MCAT/Step correlation, but not the SAT.
I'm saying that because the MCAT and Step exams are actually super important, but when applying to college, the SAT is nowhere near as important as your grades. I was super lazy for the sat and scores in the high 80's percentile, but I've already started prepping for the MCAT, so I'll likely do much better on it.
MCAT/Step correlation makes sense ( especially assuming everybody puts equal work into both)
But SAT is kind of outlier.
Tl;Dr= People tend to prep really hard for the MCAT/Step exams, but may blow off the SAT. MCAT/Step are career deciding exams, whereas the SAT is not nearly as important as your grades when you apply to undergrad schools.

 

[efle]

Undergraduate Institutional MCAT Scores as Predictors of USM... : Academic Medicine

I find this fascinating:

The three best predictors of Step 1 performance are MCAT Bio, MCAT Phys/Chem, and the average Verbal of your undergraduate institution.

It makes sense I suppose - Verbal is the thing least dependent on study/prep and a population that dominated the SAT is likely to also do well on Verbal and, it seems, Step 1. It's pretty crazy that the average of your college is a better predictor than your own personal performance on the MCAT Verbal though!

 

[libertyyne]

It shouldnt be a massive leap of faith to people that performing well on standardized tests is predictive of performing well on other standardized tests. The correlation between MCAT and Step is moderate .39~ r^2.

 

[efle]

when applying to college, the SAT is nowhere near as important as your grades. I was super lazy for the sat and scores in the high 80's percentile

SAT is the most important thing in college admissions, at least it was back in my day. Identical applicant with an 1800 vs 2000 vs 2200+ had very different prospects. There are also some large studies that have shown SAT preparation has a very minimal impact on performance, contrary to the beliefs on most high school campuses (it's crazy how much people shell out for courses).

 

[mwsapphire]

SAT is the most important thing in college admissions, at least it was back in my day. Identical applicant with an 1800 vs 2000 vs 2200+ had very different prospects. There are also some large studies that have shown SAT preparation has a very minimal impact on performance, contrary to the beliefs on most high school campuses (it's crazy how much people shell out for courses).

What?
It was not in my day, and I have several examples to prove it, but let's not go into detail.
Testing fatigue was my biggest issue though- that can be fixed with practice.
Like, I got 90's on all my AP Chem tests. Like, I broke the curve on every test. But I didn't prep for the Ap exam and scored a 4, instead of a 5. Standardized test taking is a skill that can be brushed up , but the intelligence is there.
I have a friend who is at an accelerated BS/DMD program. She barely broke 2000 on the SAT. ( lower 90's) But she prepped for the DAT and scores in the high 90's. It not an exact correlation, because even if the intelligence is there, test taking is a skill that can be taught.

 

[Jalby]

I thought the criticism stemmed more from correlating MCAT and professional income,.

Both things were criticized. MCAT to USMLE and MCAT to income.

I don't know if the studies exist, but SAT, MCAT, and USMLE should all correlate to income.

 

[Lawpy]

Both things were criticized. MCAT to USMLE and MCAT to income.

I don't know if the studies exist, but SAT, MCAT, and USMLE should all correlate to income.

Wait is the argument that standardized tests correlate to income? Or is the argument about the strength of correlation?

Doing well on standardized tests just illustrates the concept of general intelligence, which is supported by many studies to be a good predictor of long-term success, which includes income.

 

[cactusman]

Wait is the argument that standardized tests correlate to income? Or is the argument about the strength of correlation?

Doing well on standardized tests just illustrates the concept of general intelligence, which is supported by many studies to be a good predictor of long-term success, which includes income.

I would say strength of the correlation was the main thing, but, more importantly, people argue with Jalby (including in the thread he has quoted) about whether "the cream rises to the crop." Correlation between MCAT and Step 1 does not prove that going to Harvard over SUNY Stony Brook will earn you an extra $400k+ over your lifetime.

 

[efle]

What?
It was not in my day, and I have several examples to prove it, but let's not go into detail.

No detail needed. The top universities would not have SAT/ACT ranges of only the top few percent unless that was major determinant of who they admitted.

Testing fatigue was my biggest issue though- that can be fixed with practice.
Like, I got 90's on all my AP Chem tests. Like, I broke the curve on every test. But I didn't prep for the Ap exam and scored a 4, instead of a 5. Standardized test taking is a skill that can be brushed up , but the intelligence is there.
I have a friend who is at an accelerated BS/DMD program. She barely broke 2000 on the SAT. ( lower 90's) But she prepped for the DAT and scores in the high 90's. It not an exact correlation, because even if the intelligence is there, test taking is a skill that can be taught.

I'm sure you'll do fine, population trends don't lock an individual into anything

 

[mwsapphire]

^ But do you think there's an SAT/MCAT correlation?

 

[mwsapphire]

No detail needed. The top universities would not have SAT/ACT ranges of only the top few percent unless that was major determinant of who they admitted.


I'm sure you'll do fine, population trends don't lock an individual into anything

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way though, I just used myself as an example.

 

[dfib slim]

No correlation with me. MCAT 28 and Step 1 261.

 

[mwsapphire]

No correlation with me. MCAT 28 and Step 1 261.

DAAMMNNNN

 

[efle]

I think Jalby's main stance has always been that smart people go far, and there has been a lot of research showing that high intelligence is a great predictor of success. He just then applies that to various situations that haven't been directly studied, like Harvard > State because he'd expect the Harvard students to generally be smarter.

 

[Lucca]

I think you are referring to this post you made :

For people who enter private practice, it absolutely does. Some people want the prestige of teaching in academics and take a lower salary for that reason, but the people who go into private practice I would bet every dollar I have there is a strong correlation between MCAT score and income, USMLE score and income, and US News ranking and income.

There is a huge contingent of SDN that believe stats doesn't equal destiny, but with rare exceptions it does. There is a reason rankings and test exists.

Nobody claimed that there wouldnt be some correlation between standardized tests. Your claim was specifically about income. Whether the correlation is "strong" or not is debatable. A predictive R^2 of 30% seems moderate to me at best; i.e., the MCAT only predicts 30% of the variance in the Step 1 data. The Step 1 averages are significantly higher and the MCAT has been totally revamped, so this data means less than it used to, in any case.

 

[cactusman]

I think Jalby's main stance has always been that smart people go far, and there has been a lot of research showing that high intelligence is a great predictor of success. He just then applies that to various situations that haven't been directly studied, like Harvard > State because he'd expect the Harvard students to generally be smarter.

Jalby's mistake is that he can't separate success of the population from success of the individual student. A top student at low/mid-tier State might do just as well as at Harvard, with no major effect from the school, because they'll do well anywhere.

(Although school population income wil likely be weird because of academic medicine feeders, as we've also discussed before)

 

[libertyyne]

The only study I have been able to dredge up on SAT and MCAT correlation. "Statistically significant positive correlations were found among SAT total scores, final GPAs, biology GPAs versus nonbiology GPAs, and MCAT total scores. "
It is fairly old though, but once again good test takers=good tests takers . A twelve-year profile of students' SAT scores, GPAs, and MCAT scores from a small university's premedical program. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[efle]

^ But do you think there's an SAT/MCAT correlation?

Yes I do

 

[mwsapphire]

Yes I do

I was talking to Cactusman.

 

[Lawpy]

I think Jalby's main stance has always been that smart people go far, and there has been a lot of research showing that high intelligence is a great predictor of success. He just then applies that to various situations that haven't been directly studied, like Harvard > State because he'd expect the Harvard students to generally be smarter.

Jalby's mistake is that he can't separate success of the population from success of the individual student. A top student at low/mid-tier State might do just as well as at Harvard, with no major effect from the school, because they'll do well anywhere.

(Although school population income wil likely be weird because of academic medicine feeders, as we've also discussed before)

Jalby could be right for reasons besides standardized test performance. Students at Harvard likely have more resources and networking opportunities to strengthen long-term career goals compared to students at state schools. Combining this with dual degree programs at top schools (say Harvard MD/MBA), their income potential could be significantly higher than their counterparts at state schools.

 

[810390]

I think you are referring to this post you made :



Nobody claimed that there wouldnt be some correlation between standardized tests. Your claim was specifically about income. Whether the correlation is "strong" or not is debatable. A predictive R^2 of 30% seems moderate to me at best; i.e., the MCAT only predicts 30% of the variance in the Step 1 data. The Step 1 averages are significantly higher and the MCAT has been totally revamped, so this data means less than it used to, in any case.

DAD

Hi

 

[libertyyne]

There is also a relationship between IQ and income but the correlation is once again moderate. It is behind a paywall so I cant really access it. The Relation Between Childhood IQ and Income in Middle Age - ProQuest . Seems to be in the ~.3 r^2 again.

 

[cactusman]

I was talking to Cactusman.

Yes, I've seen studies (maybe the same study that was just posted) which show there is.

Still, population trends don't lock you into anything.

 

[Saifa]

You would think the point made by this thread would be common sense, but introducing the word "standardized" to testing suddenly allows people to place blame anywhere but "I didn't know the stuff" after receiving a poor score.

...I say probably about to score a 490 on the MCAT

 

[cactusman]

There is also a relationship between IQ and income but the correlation is once again moderate. It is behind a paywall so I cant really access it. The Relation Between Childhood IQ and Income in Middle Age - ProQuest . Seems to be in the ~.3 r^2 again.

Also with SAT and (parental) income. "Need blindness" in undergrad admissions is basically meaningless because ZIP code, parent degrees, race, and SAT/ACT score basically tell you the income (and placing more of an emphasis on score can eliminate practical need blindness).

 

[libertyyne]

I dont think, this is a far fetched argument set forth by @Jalby. What I sincerely doubt is that there is a large income differential between MD graduates of state X school and Harvard provided both of them completed the same specialty residency and reside in the same area. The MGMA data is broken down by years of practice rather than caliber of school. Perhaps someone should ask them to run a correlation on that.

 

[libertyyne]

Also with SAT. "Need blindness" in undergrad admissions is basically meaningless because ZIP code, parent degrees, race, and SAT/ACT score basically tell you the income (and placing more of an emphasis on score can eliminate practical need blindness).

There is also a correlation between parental income and SAT scores, so there is that.

 

[cactusman]

There is also a correlation between parental income and SAT scores, so there is that.

That's what I meant.

 

[libertyyne]

That's what I meant.

It was meant to display that you dont need zip codes and parental degrees or race.

 

[cactusman]

It was meant to display that you dont need zip codes and parental degrees or race.

Yes, but all of those (which are on the Common App) help narrow down income of applicants more than SAT alone does.

 

[Astra]

*****

The link between MCAT scores and USMLE scores isn't strong.

*****

The picture and words above was a post by a pre-med on a now closed thread.

That was me who posted that comment and I still stand by it. Friend about to turn down a full scholarship for a top 15 school

 

[cactusman]

That was me who posted that comment and I still stand by it. Friend about to turn down a full scholarship for a top 15 school

I believe Cohen would agree with you, and say it's only a moderate correlation based on the effect size in @efle 's post.

 

[Astra]

I believe Cohen would agree with you, and say it's only a moderate correlation based on the effect size in @efle 's post.

Cohen?

 

[deleted781806]

Jalby could be right for reasons besides standardized test performance. Students at Harvard likely have more resources and networking opportunities to strengthen long-term career goals compared to students at state schools. Combining this with dual degree programs at top schools (say Harvard MD/MBA), their income potential could be significantly higher than their counterparts at state schools.

That's really the kicker, I think. With the increased opportunities for networking and increased access to resources for academic support at top programs it makes sense that it would be easier for students at such institutions to achieve higher USMLE scores (and they would have had higher MCAT scores to get into said institutions) and thus more competitive/lucrative residency placements. But that's really just a population trend, and doesn't necessarily have to apply to individuals. If a student was able to succeed through standardized testing and make the proper connections while going to a mid-tier school, they too can achieve high scores and placement in competitive residencies, albeit the road was more difficult for them. The inverse could also be true, with high-achieving undergrads going to top programs only to fizzle out and not putting in the necessary work or taking advantage of their resources, and thus ending up with a low-paying position later in life.

Scores could be correlated with income, sure. But, to propose a correlation between academic institution and income would not work out very well, particularly with the already moderate correlation between various tests.