MCAT, the disadvantage of multiple takes... is it worth the risk??

[userman]

I know that taking the MCAT multiple times reflects poorly on your application. But how much so?

For instance, if I go to a MCAT test prepared, but don't feel that I've done as well as I wanted to, should I go ahead and void the test??
Or should I take the risk and see what score I got?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexasPhysician]

It does hurt to take the test multiple times, but if you sit for the exam, I would get the grade.

All sections are on a curve. I personally thought the Verbal section I had on the real thing was harder than I had ever seen before. I wanted to cry. Then I saw my score. I dominated it....compared to everyone else at least.

Don't take the test until you are well prepared, but once you do, have confidence. You may do much better than you think.

 

[longhorn09]

If you showed significant improvement on the 2nd try, it wont be flown upon.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I know that taking the MCAT multiple times reflects poorly on your application. But how much so?

For instance, if I go to a MCAT test prepared, but don't feel that I've done as well as I wanted to, should I go ahead and void the test??
Or should I take the risk and see what score I got?

If you're prepared and nothing goes catastrophically wrong (e.g. explosive diarrhea, unexpected vomiting, sudden blindness, etc.), I say take the score.

 

[z31]

I've heard often from word-of-mouth that taking the MCAT multiple times is not advised, but I've never heard from a reliable source that this is true. Anyone have it from a a school's FAQ, an answer given by a school official, even feedback from interviews, that it's frowned upon?
I would like to know so that I can advise friends/relatives applying this cycle.

 

[LizzyM]

Let's say I have two hundred applications. Half took the exam once and scored between 24 and 40. I have a second group that took the exam twice and on the second try they scored between 24 and 40 but prior to achieving those scores, they scored between 19 and 35 on a first try. Is the first group "better" than the second group? Would I prefer anyone in the first group over anyone in the second group? How might I handle the retakes?

 

[longhorn09]

Let's say I have two hundred applications. Half took the exam once and scored between 24 and 40. I have a second group that took the exam twice and on the second try they scored between 24 and 40 but prior to achieving those scores, they scored between 19 and 35 on a first try. Is the first group "better" than the second group? Would I prefer anyone in the first group over anyone in the second group? How might I handle the retakes?

So what do you think, LizzyM?

 

[surfingphd]

Ok, what if someone scores somewhere in the low to mid 30s as opposed to the high 30s because of test anxiety (i.e. they simply mess up on a section) and then retake it to get high 30s?

 

[orphn]

All sections are on a curve. I personally thought the Verbal section I had on the real thing was harder than I had ever seen before. I wanted to cry. Then I saw my score. I dominated it....compared to everyone else at least.

this is actually not true. the mcat website itself says that the curves are predetermined so i wouldn't bank on this. but yeah if you sit through the whole thing you might as well see how you did

 

[z31]

Let's say I have two hundred applications. Half took the exam once and scored between 24 and 40. I have a second group that took the exam twice and on the second try they scored between 24 and 40 but prior to achieving those scores, they scored between 19 and 35 on a first try. Is the first group "better" than the second group? Would I prefer anyone in the first group over anyone in the second group? How might I handle the retakes?

Ooh, a game? I'll take a crack at it!

There are several reasons a person might do badly on test date 1 and then better on test date 2. Some reasons indicate strengths. For example, the applicant tried but couldn't master the material the first time, but had the confidence and discipline to fix their weaknesses and do better. Other reasons would indicate weaknesses. For example, they did badly the first time because they didn't study, and needed a bad score to jolt them into getting their act together. Yet other reasons indicate nothing of interest: perhaps, on the first test date, they were sick, were at a loud testing site, or double-clicked and missed a page of questions.

Because I have no indication on paper as to which of these was the case for any given applicant, I wouldn't try to extract any information at all from the act of retaking. I would just take the highest score, regardless of whichever test date it came from (within reason), and then move on to the rest of the application.

 

[LizzyM]

Ooh, a game? I'll take a crack at it!

There are several reasons a person might do badly on test date 1 and then better on test date 2. Some reasons indicate strengths. For example, the applicant tried but couldn't master the material the first time, but had the confidence and discipline to fix their weaknesses and do better. Other reasons would indicate weaknesses. For example, they did badly the first time because they didn't study, and needed a bad score to jolt them into getting their act together. Yet other reasons indicate nothing of interest: perhaps, on the first test date, they were sick, were at a loud testing site, or double-clicked and missed a page of questions.

Because I have no indication on paper as to which of these was the case for any given applicant, I wouldn't try to extract any information at all from the act of retaking. I would just take the highest score, regardless of whichever test date it came from (within reason), and then move on to the rest of the application.

Therefore, someone with a 32 and a 37 on retake is just as good as someone who took the test once and got a 37? Isn't there a greater possibility that the former is the weaker applicant of the two?

 

[TexasPhysician]

this is actually not true. the mcat website itself says that the curves are predetermined so i wouldn't bank on this. but yeah if you sit through the whole thing you might as well see how you did

Who cares if the curve is predetermined or postdetermined? There is still a curve.

 

[jenkim]

never void bc you thought it didnt go that well...most ppl do

the real reason for voiding is if you reeeeally f'd up...like missed two whole passages in verbal or something like that

 

[Slack3r]

I took it twice and got an unevenly distributed 31 the first time and a more respectable 32 the second time. Damn physics. 🙁

 

[FluffyRabbit]

Ooh, a game? I'll take a crack at it!

There are several reasons a person might do badly on test date 1 and then better on test date 2. Some reasons indicate strengths. For example, the applicant tried but couldn't master the material the first time, but had the confidence and discipline to fix their weaknesses and do better. Other reasons would indicate weaknesses. For example, they did badly the first time because they didn't study, and needed a bad score to jolt them into getting their act together. Yet other reasons indicate nothing of interest: perhaps, on the first test date, they were sick, were at a loud testing site, or double-clicked and missed a page of questions.

Because I have no indication on paper as to which of these was the case for any given applicant, I wouldn't try to extract any information at all from the act of retaking. I would just take the highest score, regardless of whichever test date it came from (within reason), and then move on to the rest of the application.

MCAT scores come as a distribution. Even if I average a score of X on my practice tests, on the actual thing I may do better or worse without any change in my true ability. The more tries you need to get the same score, the less credible it is because since you're taking the highest score, more retakes means I have more chances to have things go my way.

Anyway, the "strength" of having the confidence and discipline to fix their weaknesses and do better is unlikely to be seen as superior to the confidence and discipline to prepare better and just do well on the first try.

 

[z31]

MCAT scores come as a distribution. Even if I average a score of X on my practice tests, on the actual thing I may do better or worse without any change in my true ability. The more tries you need to get the same score, the less credible it is because since you're taking the highest score, more retakes means I have more chances to have things go my way.

That's a good point. In fact, I don't know how much variation we're talking about here. Does anyone know (is it X +/- 1 or it is X +/- 4, etc.)? The answer would affect how I would 'bin' the scores. However I would still take the highest score - I would just consider it as equivalent to other scores within the same range (ex: 30-34? 35-39? 40-42? 43+?). What do you think? To me, this would address the problem of credibility but still give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, the "strength" of having the confidence and discipline to fix their weaknesses and do better is unlikely to be seen as superior to the confidence and discipline to prepare better and just do well on the first try.

I would disagree. Everyone encounters difficulty. People who suck it up, reflect, have the self-awareness to fix their weaknesses, try again, and succeed on the MCAT are likely to apply the same attitude when they meet later challenges: it might be a difficult procedure, new and weighty responsibilities, or unexpected life challenges. This is indeed a strength, not a "strength". Of course, I would never take a person with a 35-->42 over a person with a 42, but I would never take a person with a 42 over a person with a 35-->42 either. I would decide based on other factors.

Now, the applicant who does well on his first try. A MCAT score of 45 means you have strong academic preparation, you're brilliant, you've honed good study habits. But I disagree that this implies confidence or discipline in the face of failure, and by extension, that this implies the 45-er has the same strengths the 38-->45-er has. The strengths are simply different.

HOWEVER, it's assuming a lot that we would know why the 38-->45-er improved. That was my point. To me, if you're looking at an applicant with a 40+, whether the result of natural brilliance or after a retake, you have yourself a person who's got a sound grasp of scientific/logical concepts at the time of application. To go beyond that to assume initial laziness or resilience is silly. I'd move on to other parts of the application.

LizzyM, I hope this also answered your question. Just to add that sure, the re-taker will likely have been a weaker MCAT-taker on his first try, but he's got what it takes by his second. What I think the OP is asking is whether someone would hold it against them for knowing their Orgo in a test date in July but not the one in March. If you would, I'm curious as to what you'd be assuming about him/her that you wouldn't with the person who may or may not have known their Orgo in March but didn't test, but did in July. Mis-gauged how prepared they were in March? How big a weakness is this to you?

 

[Kip]

I believe LizzyM's question was rhetorical....

 

[ucladoc2b]

Therefore, someone with a 32 and a 37 on retake is just as good as someone who took the test once and got a 37? Isn't there a greater possibility that the former is the weaker applicant of the two?

Does a 37 cumulative MCAT score really make a much better applicant than a person with a 32? Depending on the distribution of the score, the person with the 37 may have only gotten a few more questions correct than the applicant with a 32.

You figure by the time an applicant hits around the 90th percentile on the MCAT (which is around a 32-33), there are better metrics to measure applicant quality and suitability for a medical career than through a standardized test score.

Unfortunatly, these measures are more qualitative. And aren't counted by USNWR for ranking purposes.

 

[KPCOFGS]

I believe LizzyM's question was rhetorical....

And the fact is, no one's opinion but LizzyM's matters anyway. None of us are on adcoms! People can argue all they want for the 25 -> 31 candidate, but the fact is we may just be trying to make ourselves feel better.

 

[drizzt3117]

Does a 37 cumulative MCAT score really make a much better applicant than a person with a 32? Depending on the distribution of the score, the person with the 37 may have only gotten a few more questions correct than the applicant with a 32.

You figure by the time an applicant hits around the 90th percentile on the MCAT (which is around a 32-33), there are better metrics to measure applicant quality and suitability for a medical career than through a standardized test score.

Unfortunatly, these measures are more qualitative. And aren't counted by USNWR for ranking purposes.

That's saying a 230 step is the same as a 265 because you don't have to get that many more questions right... Hey, it's only like 10 percentile points higher, right?

Also you're looking at the percentiles among all test takers, not all applicants or matriculated students.

There might not be much quantitative difference at the very top of the curve (> 13 per section) but there's a pretty big difference in amount of questions wrong between a 10 and a 13.

 

[LizzyM]

And the fact is, no one's opinion but LizzyM's matters anyway. None of us are on adcoms! People can argue all they want for the 25 -> 31 candidate, but the fact is we may just be trying to make ourselves feel better.

The adcoms are independent of one another and may vary in how they interprete MCATs. Arguments can be made for taking the most recent score, the best score, the average of scores, best score in each section... I'm sure there are other ways as well.

 

[LetsGo352]

.

 

[LizzyM]

I have an interesting question though that applies to me pretty well. I got a 27 the first time and say that I am not confident in retaking and getting above a 30. On the second time around, say I got a 29. Wouldn't it better if I did not retake it because now schools will know that 27 isn't a fluke and that I'm not a great standardized test taker for sure. At least with a 1 time 27, they'd have doubts about my abilities but could think it was just a bad day, correct?

Also, I agree with Lizzy M that someone who takes it twice and gets a 32, 37 is worse off as an applicant than someone who takes it once and gets a 37 (assuming all else is equal).

My dean would advise me to split the difference and consider you a 28. That's better than someone who had a 27 and called it a day but not as good as someone who took it once and achieved a 29.

 

[wanderer]

Does a 37 cumulative MCAT score really make a much better applicant than a person with a 32? Depending on the distribution of the score, the person with the 37 may have only gotten a few more questions correct than the applicant with a 32.

Not really. Most of the people that get a 37 are consistently getting 37 plus or minus 2 points on their practice tests, and people that get 32 usually get 32 plus or minus 2 on their practice tests. That means that a 37 on a bad day is still above a 32 on a good day.

 

[TreeOfSouls]

Hopefully, the adcoms would look at the overall package. If someone had a 3.98 and got a 32 then a 37 vs. someone else who has a 3.7 and got the 37 right away? If one has done research and the other didn't? If one has been in meaningful leadership/volunteer positions and the other appears to have done short-term experiences to check them off on the application? Etc.

But, at the end of the day, without an explanation for the first score, it's impossible to accurately judge the situation. What about someone who took expensive test prep and got a 37 the first time around versus someone else with a worse financial situation who tried to go without and got a 32, then got the money together and did test prep, then scores the same 37 as the other applicant- both having test prep at that point and both getting a 37? Does that really mean the applicant with a 32 the first time around was "weaker"? Maybe the one who got the 32 first time around took the MCAT before (or while) completing O-Chem II or Physics II because not waiting would cost an entire year of waiting for the next application cycle just to take that single course. I've heard plenty of other students be advised to "go ahead and try" the MCAT in that kind of situation b/c it can be retaken and why wait a year when you might score "good enough" go get into med school... when maybe it isn't the best advice. So, is someone scored a 32 before taking one of those courses and a 37 after, does that really mean they are a weaker candidate than someone who took all the classes beforehand and got a 37? Who's to say that NEITHER of them knew some answers and one guessed lucky a lot and one guessed poorly a lot? There are too many possibilities!

I think the MCAT is a tool best used with a grain of salt and definitely with an eye on the overall picture given the many possibilities for different situations. If a person gets a higher score on a second try, I think the second score shows their knowledge level. It's possible for people to improve and whatever lesson they learn from that process will likely serve them well in medical school. So, unless I knew something otherwise, I probably wouldn't view those scores much differently. But, that's just me!

To the OP, from what I hear, it's normal to feel like you didn't do well on the MCAT even if you did. OTOH, we're hearing from LizzyM that you might be better off voiding if you really think you didn't do your best b/c some adcoms will penalize you in terms of comparison if you end up taking it twice. I think that's harsh and unrealistic, but it may be the reality. I guess I'd consider my overall "package" (how strong is your app in other aspects?) and how badly I felt I did on the test to make the decision whether to void the test or not. It's probably good that you're thinking it through beforehand. But, maybe set a criteria for yourself in advance so that you can figure out if you're psyching yourself out or not on test day.

Therefore, someone with a 32 and a 37 on retake is just as good as someone who took the test once and got a 37? Isn't there a greater possibility that the former is the weaker applicant of the two?

 

[boaz]

If you showed significant improvement on the 2nd try, it wont be flown upon.

Therefore, someone with a 32 and a 37 on retake is just as good as someone who took the test once and got a 37? Isn't there a greater possibility that the former is the weaker applicant of the two?

Why not look at it this way: the one who took it again and made a significant improvement exhibits a personality that greatly increases the chances of success in medical school. It shows that the applicant is determined to do whatever it takes to be successful and doesn't get discouraged by early struggles. The applicant who got a high score at first bat may or may not have this personality characteristic.

Does your adcom take this into account?

 

[LizzyM]

Is the one who prepares and does very wel on the first try a strong applicant? Does the one who does relatively well or OK and retakes and does better well prepared or did they go in the first time with hubris and need a wake-up call to work hard & do well the second time?

We'd like students who take the boards once, who take med school exams once and not those who need a few cracks at it to do well. That's not to say that we don't interview some people who have taken the MCAT 2 or more times but we factor in all the scores rather than just the highest.

 

[Excelsius]

There is obviously variation among different schools. I don't think there is a big problem here because:

1. Some schools will take your best MCAT.
2. Pretty much all schools will at least average your scores. This means that it is always an advantage to take the MCAT twice and do much better on it than take it once and do poorly.
3. There is no reason to take the MCAT more than once, especially if you're on SDN. You can pretty accurately know what your score will be before you even take the MCAT because the practice tests provide an accurate feedback. So if your practice test averages are much lower than 30, don't take the MCAT. If you're shooting for 40, your practice averages have to be 38+.

So there is a lot of predictability and choice.

 

[STAT EKG]

Not really. Most of the people that get a 37 are consistently getting 37 plus or minus 2 points on their practice tests, and people that get 32 usually get 32 plus or minus 2 on their practice tests. That means that a 37 on a bad day is still above a 32 on a good day.

I completely agree with this statement. I can kind of understand where (s)he was coming from if you're only talking about the verbal reasoning section. The grading of verbal is pretty screwy in that you can have one student miss 4 and get a 12, another miss 6 and get a 10, and another miss 12 and get a 10.

I've made this argument before, but *why* isn't the MCAT graded as a flat number of answers correct? I don't care what people say, missing 6 and 12 aren't the same and the difference between missing 4 and 6 much more marginal than a 2-point total score difference.

Am I the only one out there who feels like the scaling system makes you wonder "what kind of 10," "what kind of 12" or "what kind of 8" someone got?

I don't get it at all. It's not very hard to add 2-digit numbers.

...but maybe it is just me.

 

[RapplixGmed]

A similar topic that is related to this question is "does the ability to take the MCAT more often lead to MCAT score inflation?"

Just a few years ago, students were only allowed to take it twice a year so the score you got was the score you were pretty much stuck with for that application cycle. However, with the very high frequency tests we have now, students who get an unsatisfactory score the first time can keep on taking it until they've gotten the score they wanted.

This, to me, seems like there is strong upwards pressure now on scores and I wouldn't be surprised if the mcat score reported for the average matriculating student increases sharply in the next few years.

 

[Excelsius]

A similar topic that is related to this question is "does the ability to take the MCAT more often lead to MCAT score inflation?"

Just a few years ago, students were only allowed to take it twice a year so the score you got was the score you were pretty much stuck with for that application cycle. However, with the very high frequency tests we have now, students who get an unsatisfactory score the first time can keep on taking it until they've gotten the score they wanted.

This, to me, seems like there is strong upwards pressure now on scores and I wouldn't be surprised if the mcat score reported for the average matriculating student increases sharply in the next few years.

MCAT is graded on a curve. Rather than the averages going up, it is far more likely that the test will become more difficult and it will be harder to get 30+, which is already happening. The averages for matriculants would go up only if there were many more qualified applicants, but given the state of medicine today and that new medschools open almost yearly, the net result might indicate that MCAT averages (and even GPAs to some extent) won't be affected too much. More like an oscillation. Since we've had the worst economy in decades for over two years now, one would expect to have the highest number of applicants for the current few cycles and then a decrease. If green energy finally takes off in this country, we should see an exodus of talent in that direction.

 

[peaceandrelease]

I re-wrote the MCAT four times and my highest score ended up being 32O. My MCAT scores showed a steady increase: my overall score increased between 2-4 every time I rewrote.

I applied to 2 schools and was accepted to both. However, my GPA was fairly high (3.9+). Point being, if you can justify re-writing the MCAT so many times (ie, show an increase in score each time), as well as compensate for a low MCAT score in other areas (ie, high GPA), then I wouldn't worry one bit about re-writing the MCAT.

 

[Equality]

I took the MCAT twice. First time I got 28O. Second time got 37S. I actually got compliments on the score increase at interviews. Of course it'd be ideal if you get your best score at first official try, but if you don't get your best score first time around, do it again and get the best score you can possibly get. That's next best thing to the ideal best-score-first-time-you-take-the-MCAT.