MCAT

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

justanotherpremed1

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
64
Reaction score
29
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁
 
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁
Confidence comes with preparation. Go study, it will be okay
 
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁

Have you taken practice tests? Do you have a study schedule? Know what resources you'll be using? The test gets less scary when you have a plan in front of you.
 
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁
What's your target score?
Also, refer to this as a resource: https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...5b5844a/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf#page=12

Also, drill FLs timed. By your 3rd test you should have a pretty good idea where your range is.
 
There are many old AAMC FL's floating around on the internet that are easy to find. Even though the MCAT has changed, they are still a good representative of what you'll see from the AAMC even now days(current AAMC FL's for the new exam will repeat some of these old AAMC FL passages). Do one of these FL's and see how you do.

If you get something like a 10 overall and are completely lost on how to do tons of the questions, then yeah, that's not a great sign. But if feel like the questions are manageable and you can get through them ok and find you can work through these questions, even if your score is low(something like a 24----keep in mind this is before any studying there are things bound to be tested you dont remember anything about) you likely have the capabilities to get a solid score on the real deal with proper preparation.
 
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁

You are not alone. The MCAT was a huge hurdle for me. GPA is definitely easier, and I felt the MCAT was an impossible hurdle. But then I'm pretty bad at standardized testing. You may not be. I still feel the same way you do and I've been accepted to medical school. Its just something you have to get through.
 
The time you chose to spend making this thread, and any other time you have been similarly agonizing, is time that could have been spent studying and was instead wasted.

I don't say this to be rude, but to reinforce that fact that the only block here is you. Anyone can do well on a standardized test. You get out what you put in.
 
The time you chose to spend making this thread, and any other time you have been similarly agonizing, is time that could have been spent studying and was instead wasted.

I don't say this to be rude, but to reinforce that fact that the only block here is you. Anyone can do well on a standardized test. You get out what you put in.

This really is not true. There are many many many applicants who put in a LOT of effort using every resource out there as best as they can and have only scored a 25 or less on the MCAT after several attempts.
 
SDN can make you forget this but it is interesting to realize that out of people who apply to medical school with 3.8+ GPAs 37% are applying with a sub 30 score. 15% apply with 3.8+ GPAs and sub 27 showings on the MCAT.

As for people with 3.6+ GPA's, only half who apply hit 30+ on the MCAT.

Having said that there are hoards and hoards of people who's studying techniques(even after multiple attempts) doesnt come close to anything resembling SN2's plan or anything close to that rigorous or anything close to what is necessary. Many people take prep classes, passively take notes on material, use poor resources for practice or dont practice at all, and then wonder why they cant do well. My guess from my own experience is that personally is out of all the pre-meds I know, probably less than 15% of them when prepping for the MCAT go through all the AAMC FL's. Kind of crazy when you think about it.

It's also worth noting there comes a point where if you are hitting top grades but can't get a good MCAT score it starts to call into question your GPA and whether there was a) grade inflation in your courses b) your courses didnt teach you or you didnt acquire necessary reasoning and thinking skills. IMO it does call into question a GPA to some extent when a bio major with a 3.9+ is applying with a 28 and a 9 on the bio section.

I've never really bought the whole "I have a low MCAT and high GPA because I'm a bad test taker" argument. Getting a good GPA is all about getting high scores on series of tests in college(or at least it should be). A low MCAT with a high GPA rather is more likely due to lack of sufficient prep or reasoning skills, neither of which is a good thing.
 
This really is not true. There are many many many applicants who put in a LOT of effort using every resource out there as best as they can and have only scored a 25 or less on the MCAT after several attempts.

Obviously neither of us have data here, but I would tend to think those people are more likely to be studying ineffectively than inherently less intelligent.
 
Obviously neither of us have data here, but I would tend to think those people are more likely to be studying ineffectively than inherently less intelligent.

Grade inflation or going to rather uncompetitive schools taking classes where it doesnt take much to get an A and the people you are competing with are of low quality is also another factor at play. People with competitive GPAs for MD programs probably shouldnt have such high GPAs which can explain why they are struggling so much with the MCAT.
 
This really is not true. There are many many many applicants who put in a LOT of effort using every resource out there as best as they can and have only scored a 25 or less on the MCAT after several attempts.
Obviously neither of us have data here, but I would tend to think those people are more likely to be studying ineffectively than inherently less intelligent.

Something is off if someone can only score 25 or lower after several attempts. It's either due to consistently poor studying (spending hours studying means nothing; studying efficiently matters a lot) or severely limited comprehension/analysis skills. In the absolute tragic case, it can also be due to a neurological trauma.
 
Something is off if someone can only score 25 or lower after several attempts. It's either due to consistently poor studying (spending hours studying means nothing; studying efficiently matters a lot) or severely limited comprehension/analysis skills. In the absolute tragic case, it can also be due to a neurological trauma.

I think you would be surprised. Also I would not attribute a 25 on the MCAT to neurological trauma even if that was the highest score someone had received after 3 attempts or any other extreme scenario.

Obviously neither of us have data here, but I would tend to think those people are more likely to be studying ineffectively than inherently less intelligent.

No, none of us have data. But memorizing content is no good if you dont know how to apply it. There are people who have a hard time improving on FL's and cannot for the life of them figure out what they are doing wrong. They will go back to the content, and be like "I knew this, but I dont know why I got it wrong on the test." They figure it out for that particular scenario, and then make another mistake.

This is mostly attributed to a lower level of inherent critical thinking which you can only hone so much. Especially for a test like the MCAT.

SDN can make you forget this but it is interesting to realize that out of people who apply to medical school with 3.8+ GPAs 37% are applying with a sub 30 score. 15% apply with 3.8+ GPAs and sub 27 showings on the MCAT.

As for people with 3.6+ GPA's, only half who apply hit 30+ on the MCAT.

Having said that there are hoards and hoards of people who's studying techniques(even after multiple attempts) doesnt come close to anything resembling SN2's plan or anything close to that rigorous or anything close to what is necessary. Many people take prep classes, passively take notes on material, use poor resources for practice or dont practice at all, and then wonder why they cant do well. My guess from my own experience is that personally is out of all the pre-meds I know, probably less than 15% of them when prepping for the MCAT go through all the AAMC FL's. Kind of crazy when you think about it.

It's also worth noting there comes a point where if you are hitting top grades but can't get a good MCAT score it starts to call into question your GPA and whether there was a) grade inflation in your courses b) your courses didnt teach you or you didnt acquire necessary reasoning and thinking skills. IMO it does call into question a GPA to some extent when a bio major with a 3.9+ is applying with a 28 and a 9 on the bio section.

I've never really bought the whole "I have a low MCAT and high GPA because I'm a bad test taker" argument. Getting a good GPA is all about getting high scores on series of tests in college(or at least it should be). A low MCAT with a high GPA rather is more likely due to lack of sufficient prep or reasoning skills, neither of which is a good thing.

Right. But what I am saying is that there are a considerable amount of those who do follow rigorous study plans and end up receiving poor scores on the MCAT (nowadays anything below a 30 hurts you if applying MD).
 
Last edited:
Go see your school's counseling center stat, because I worry that you might have some test taking anxiety issues that may hinder your performance.

You should NOT be taking a career deciding, high stakes exam unless you're capable of giving it your all.


Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁
 
I think you would be surprised. Also I would not attribute a 25 on the MCAT to neurological trauma even if that was the highest score someone had received after 3 attempts or any other extreme scenario.



No, none of us have data. But memorizing content is no good if you dont know how to apply it. There are people who have a hard time improving on FL's and cannot for the life of them figure out what they are doing wrong. They will go back to the content, and be like "I knew this, but I dont know why I got it wrong on the test." They figure it out for that particular scenario, and then make another mistake.

This is mostly attributed to a lower level of inherent critical thinking which you can only hone so much. Especially for a test like the MCAT.



Right. But what I am saying is that there are a considerable amount of those who do follow rigorous study plans and end up receiving poor scores on the MCAT (nowadays anything below a 30 hurts you if applying MD).

The neurological trauma was in reference to gyngyn's story in a related thread about someone scoring very low repeatedly. Of course this doesn't apply to someone scoring only average, but scoring average has little to do with innate intelligence and everything to do with efficient/correct studying. Spamming hours each day for months memorizing stuff is a recipe for disaster

If someone is smart enough to handle the college curriculum and graduate without failing, they should do well on the MCAT with good studying. And i consider at least a 27 (9 on each section) as to be doing well. Of course, doing extremely well (39+) requires intelligence and sharp analytical/reasoning skills because of discerning through the subtleties of the exam (and of course, luck plays a role)

So saying someone has inhetently low intelligence and can't crack a 25 despite repeated attempts is an unnecessary defeatist attitude.
 
The neurological trauma was in reference to gyngyn's story in a related thread about someone scoring very low repeatedly. Of course this doesn't apply to someone scoring only average, but scoring average has little to do with innate intelligence and everything to do with efficient/correct studying. Spamming hours each day for months memorizing stuff is a recipe for disaster

If someone is smart enough to handle the college curriculum and graduate without failing, they should do well on the MCAT with good studying. And i consider at least a 27 (9 on each section) as to be doing well. Of course, doing extremely well (39+) requires intelligence and sharp analytical/reasoning skills because of discerning through the subtleties of the exam (and of course, luck plays a role)

So saying someone has inhetently low intelligence and can't crack a 25 despite repeated attempts is an unnecessary defeatist attitude.

I understand what you are saying. The disagreement here is coming from our definition of doing "well" on the MCAT. You consider a 27 doing well on the MCAT. What I consider doing well on the MCAT is having a score that will put you in a sufficient spot (meaning the MCAT is not what is bringing down your application) for matriculation into a MD medical school. This means scoring a 31+. If we are talking about getting a 27, then that is probably doable for most people. But the reason I have brought up the 25 is because I have personal experience with friends who have not been able to score higher than a 25 no matter what resources they exhaust or how efficiently they study. We went through the same classes at the same schools, etc. There are threads made by users on SDN lamenting the same story over the many months I've been on here.

I dont think it is as much of a defeatist attitude as it is a realistic one for some. Maybe @efle can share his thoughts on this as he has also had a lot to say in the past about this topic.
 
I do tend to think people somewhat overblow the "critical thinking" nature of the MCAT and level of "intellect" that goes into it to some extent. Yes, to get a 37+, you obviously need certain gifts a large number don't have. But a 30-32? I dont completely buy that.

Take a look at AAMC Fls(which in my experience are extremely close proximations to the real deal).

You'll see a fair amount of questions that are largely by and large memory recall. Others are mostly memory recall, you just have to use or figure out some small logic to figure out what the question is asking
Within passages, you'll see a fair amount of questions that
a) Dont refer to the passage itself and are relying on your knowledge
b) Can be answered directly in the passage itself, almost word for word.

Are there some hard difficult questions? Yes, of course. That's what separates the men from the boys. But I think for any one section the number of questions that require some difficult level of thinking not possible for many is under 10. And with the MCAT, you can pretty much always eliminate an answer down to 2 choices. Even if you are completely lost on 8 questions, get it down to 50-50 and youll get about 4 right. Out of the other questions, if you only make 3-4 mistakes youll still end up with around an 11-12 equivalent on that section for the AAMC FL. Just go through an AAMC FL, new MCAT or old. The large majority really aren't testing some sort of complex reasoning.

Alot of the MCAT is simply getting used to a different format of testing and style. Many dont adjust appropriately then blame "lack of inherent critical thinking skills" on this or simply didnt go through a very rigorous UG curriculum. Many people I will note study months for the test thinking theyve done all they can when in reality they are approaching everything the wrong way. Seen this happen in my experience from people I know on multiple occassions.
 
I do tend to think people somewhat overblow the "critical thinking" nature of the MCAT and level of "intellect" that goes into it. Yes, to get a 37+, you obviously need certain gifts a large number don't have. But a 30-32? I dont completely buy that.

Take a look at AAMC Fls(which in my experience are extremely close proximations to the real deal).

You'll see a fair amount of questions that are largely by and large memory recall. Others are mostly memory recall, you just have to use or figure out some small logic to figure out what the question is asking
Within passages, you'll see a fair amount of questions that
a) Dont refer to the passage itself and are relying on your knowledge
b) Can be answered directly in the passage itself, almost word for word.

Are there some hard difficult questions? Yes, of course. That's what separates the men from the boys. But I think for any one section the number of questions that require some difficult level of thinking not possible for many is under 10. And with the MCAT, you can pretty much always eliminate an answer down to 2 choices. Even if you are completely lost on 8 questions, get it down to 50-50 and youll get about 4 right. Out of the other questions, if you only make 3-4 mistakes youll still end up with around an 11-12 equivalent on that section for the AAMC FL. Just go through an AAMC FL, new MCAT or old. The large majority really aren't testing some sort of complex reasoning.

Alot of the MCAT is simply getting used to a different format of testing and style. Many dont adjust appropriately then blame "lack of inherent critical thinking skills" on this or simply didnt go through a very rigorous UG curriculum. Many people I will note study months for the test thinking theyve done all they can when in reality they are approaching everything the wrong way. Seen this happen in my experience from people I know on multiple occassions.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you here. It seems our experiences are what are shaping our viewpoints. But I do think if I respond, this will turn into a circle argument 🙂
 
I understand what you are saying. The disagreement here is coming from our definition of doing "well" on the MCAT. You consider a 27 doing well on the MCAT. What I consider doing well on the MCAT is having a score that will put you in a sufficient spot (meaning the MCAT is not what is bringing down your application) for matriculation into a MD medical school. This means scoring a 31+. If we are talking about getting a 27, then that is probably doable for most people. But the reason I have brought up the 25 is because I have personal experience with friends who have not been able to score higher than a 25 no matter what resources they exhaust or how efficiently they study. We went through the same classes at the same schools, etc. There are threads made by users on SDN lamenting the same story over the many months I've been on here.

I dont think it is as much of a defeatist attitude as it is a realistic one for some. Maybe @efle can share his thoughts on this as he has also had a lot to say in the past about this topic.

I marked a 27 as doing well because they can get into a US medical school (including DO schools). Of course MD schools are more competitive, but hey, that's what it is (but does that really matter if the average student's objective is to get into a medical school? You can't afford to be greedy if you know you are average). Getting higher scores simply requires better studying, sharper analytical/reasoning skills, luck, familiarity, and of course, innate intelligence. ... but that's the point of standardized exams

But i stress that people who score average doesn't mean they have average/limited intelligence. All we can say confidently is people who score very well on standardized exams have sharp analytical/reasoning skills and are overall very intelligent. That's really it.
 
I marked a 27 as doing well because they can get into a US medical school (including DO schools). Of course MD schools are more competitive, but hey, that's what it is (but does that really matter if the average student's objective is to get into a medical school? You can't afford to be greedy if you know you are average). Getting higher scores simply requires better studying, sharper analytical/reasoning skills, luck, familiarity, and of course, innate intelligence. ... but that's the point of standardized exams

But i stress that people who score average doesn't mean they have average/limited intelligence. All we can say confidently is people who score high on standardized exams have sharp analytical/reasoning skills and are overall very intelligent. That's really it.

Well I dont think I said they had average/limited overall intelligence. I did imply that its probably considerably less than those who score exceptionally higher on standardized exams.

When considering overall intelligence, you have to look at the pool of test takers. After all, the MCAT test taker pool is NOT like the ACT test taker pool.
 
Ah, the good old SDN mantra that only the mentally handicapped could ever get stuck near the median MCAT score. Makes me laugh every time! Lawper holds an especially extreme position about this, he believes there is no such thing as intelligence (and that heritability studies and psychology are not real science) so anyone who studies properly should expect a 99.9th percentile score (42+ in his words). Mimelim also once told me that only about 5% of the population is incapable of being a physician, which means an IQ of 75+ is good to go.

I'm way on the opposite end, I think people have inherent cap-out points and studying can only get you to yours. I knew people in highschool that tried really, really hard to keep up in honors math and science classes and just couldn't get it. I've known people in college that tried really, really hard to do well (above-average) in prereqs and couldn't, costing a few their planned career.

As I've said before, effective prep is necessary but not sufficient for a strong MCAT (top fifth / 31+ / 510+). There are some people who could never break into 30s, even with unlimited prep and if their life depended on it. The crowd taking the MCAT is highly selected for, full of people that survived prereq weedout and prepped a bunch for what they know is a very important test. Effort alone isn't going to let everyone beat 4/5ths of med school hopefuls.
 
Well I dont think I said they had average/limited overall intelligence. I did imply that its probably considerably less than those who score exceptionally higher on standardized exams.

When considering overall intelligence, you have to look at the pool of test takers. After all, the MCAT test taker pool is NOT like the ACT test taker pool.

This is mostly attributed to a lower level of inherent critical thinking which you can only hone so much. Especially for a test like the MCAT.

I use intelligence synonymously with analytical skills, reasoning and critical thinking because these components define intelligence pretty well (and to distinguish from other aspects like social and emotional intelligence).

Of course the pool of test takers is different, which is why there's no reason why the MCAT pool of students can't score well on the exam. They are college educated students who were taught to think in various levels in classes (at least the sane colleges believe in this). Doing well in college means doing well on the MCAT and getting into medical school.

Ah, the good old SDN mantra that only the mentally handicapped could ever get stuck near the median MCAT score. Makes me laugh every time! Lawper holds an especially extreme position about this, he believes there is no such thing as intelligence (and that heritability studies and psychology are not real science) so anyone who studies properly should expect a 99.9th percentile score (42+ in his words). Mimelim also once told me that only about 5% of the population is incapable of being a physician, which means an IQ of 75+ is good to go.

I'm way on the opposite end, I think people have inherent cap-out points and studying can only get you to yours. I knew people in highschool that tried really, really hard to keep up in honors math and science classes and just couldn't get it. I've known people in college that tried really, really hard to do well (above-average) in prereqs and couldn't, costing a few their planned career.

As I've said before, effective prep is necessary but not sufficient for a strong MCAT (top fifth / 31+ / 510+). There are some people who could never break into 30s, even with unlimited prep and if their life depended on it. The crowd taking the MCAT is highly selected for, full of people that survived prereq weedout and prepped a bunch for what they know is a very important test. Effort alone isn't going to let everyone beat 4/5ths of med school hopefuls.

I softened my stance! I agree that people who do very well in standardized exams have strong intelligence but that's it. And that only applies to intelligence defined as critical thinking, analytical and reasoning skills, which means this intelligence is hardly innate.

Psychology isn't a science. It's a social science no different from sociology, political science and economics.

Agree to disagree on the rest.
 
I use intelligence synonymously with analytical skills, reasoning and critical thinking because these components define intelligence pretty well (and to distinguish from other aspects like social and emotional intelligence).

Of course the pool of test takers is different, which is why there's no reason why the MCAT pool of students can't score well on the exam
. They are college educated students who were taught to think in various levels in classes (at least the sane colleges believe in this). Doing well in college means doing well on the MCAT and getting into medical school.

But this is why they cannot all do so well.
 
I'm not totally disagreeing with you here. It seems our experiences are what are shaping our viewpoints. But I do think if I respond, this will turn into a circle argument 🙂

Without actually going through one of the new AAMC FLs and breaking down the test by each type of question and using specific examples there's really not much more we can say so yeah you are right this can turn circular fast. I did it in the past when I was prepping for my MCAT: I don't have nearly the will to do it again.

I do agree with @efle to a fair extent and am often on the side of "the work ethic/time spent studying between successful pre-meds and weedouts often isnt nearly as great a difference as people make it out to be" and that "the people who get the top MCAT scores are often the ones who study the least for it". Having said that people do need to realize what the bottom half of the MCAT testing pool looks like
a) there are always going to be people who clearly should have voided but who didn't. This is always going to include alot more people than it should
b) there will be people who did negligble prep who just took the test to see what it's like. Again, more people do this than SDN realizes.
c) there are people who prepare completely the wrong way.
d) people who's first language isnt english which affects all sections.
e) I've said in the past if I had to guess I would say less than 15% of people who prep for the MCAT actually took more than 1-2 AAMC FL's. SDN level of MCAT prep far differs from the generic pre-med who is half asleep throughout his Kaplan class, reads a bio book and does problems that test facts and memory only, relearns key terms and thinks that is all that it takes to prep for the MCAT.

Likewise, about twice as many people take the MCAT each year as do people who apply to MD schools. What does that tell you? Many people who take the MCAT never apply to medical school. There are ALOT of weeds who take the test and get weeded out who consist of the bottom half of the curve. I dont think this weeding out is necessairly because of the difficulty of hte test; I think people with all these sub 21 type scores are weeded out more because of themselves. If the average GPA of the person who takes the MCAT is somewhere around a 3.4(I remember reading this somewhere can't confirm it though at all) and the average GPA of the average person who applies to MD programs is about 3.55, that would mean the average GPA of a person who takes the MCAT but who doesn't apply to an MD school is about a 3.25. Again, 3.25, that's a relatively flawed applicant and if that is what constitutes half of the testing population, that can make the you need to beat out 80% of people to get a 31 alot more daunting than it seems. If we eliminate half of the testing population, suddenly you only need to beat out 60% of pre meds to get a 31. Still rather difficult, but much more feasible.
 
A smart preparation will achieve you a 509+ score. Test-taking abilities can be developed through a lot of practice, so make it a priority in your studying. Maybe you will not get 520+, but with an average intelligence and smart preparation you can hit 509+.
 
But that doesn't rule out bad prep from being a cause

Is this your line of thinking? :

If you are exceptionally intelligent (39+ MCAT scorer), then hard work/efficient study methods will not help another gain this level of intelligence.

If you are anywhere from below average intelligence to well above average intelligence, you should be able to score sufficiently to get into a medical school program if you have put in the hard work/efficient study methods.

If this is your view, you should know that just like the "exceptionally intelligent" 39+ MCAT scorers there are gradations of "intelligence caps" for others. The MCAT is hardly a knowledge based exam. The content must be learned yes, but the SCORE comes from your critical thinking due to there mostly being non"regurgitation" type questions.

But then I hold the same view as Efle, and like you said to him, you agree to disagree. So, I guess we agree to disagree as well.
 
Is this your line of thinking? :

If you are exceptionally intelligent (39+ MCAT scorer), then hard work/efficient study methods will not help another gain this level of intelligence.

If you are anywhere from below average intelligence to well above average intelligence, you should be able to score sufficiently to get into a medical school program if you have put in the hard work/efficient study methods.

If this is your view, you should know that just like the "exceptionally intelligent" 39+ MCAT scorers there are gradations of "intelligence caps" for others. The MCAT is hardly a knowledge based exam. The content must be learned yes, but the SCORE comes from your critical thinking due to there mostly being non"regurgitation" type questions.

But then I hold the same view as Efle, and like you said to him, you agree to disagree. So, I guess we agree to disagree as well.

My views are simple. Someone who scored a 39+ clearly has high intelligence because of strong analytical, reasoning and critical thinking skills. These are NOT innate but purely environmental and experiential. Sharpening such skills in early childhood helps significantly in the long run, but again, it's environmental, not innate.

It is also possible for someone with average reasoning skills to score a 39+ purely out of familiarity (i didn't say you need to be intelligent to get a 39+, but simply those who get a 39+ are intelligent). But you have to realize that such intelligence isn't beyond someone's capacity, and it is inaccurate to say that someone can't crack a 30-32 range with only good prep.

I think you guys are exaggerating the difficulty of the MCAT, and standardized exams in general, by making them seem much more difficult than normal. They really aren't if you are well prepared, confident and can think (as you should for a college student/grad).
 
Smh. Don't need to get into it again here @Lawper, but unless you also deny that genetics is real science, the evidence is that ~60% of intelligence is innate rather than learned. It's just another phenotype. There are many people who will never win an Olympic medal in sprinting no matter how much they train, and I don't mean only the few percent born with severe musculoskeletal diseases.

Now, by no means do I think you have to be some far outlier to be a good college student and make it through med school, you don't have to win a genetic lottery to stand a chance. People with mid 20s MCATs mostly pass boards on first attempt! But being at the median is the product of best effort for some. At least imo, it is straight up delusional to think everyone outside the top fifth is doing something wrong and limiting themselves.

A 32 is what, like top 10th? You can't seriously think only 1/10th of premeds studies well for the test
 
To get a 32 you needed to be in the top 16 percentile.

The thing is people with sub 3.0's also pass Step 1 on their first attempt the majority of time. The large majority of people who enter MD programs with 2.7's graduate medical school. The passing rate of Step 1 doesn't really do much for me. We all know the flaws in someone's academic capabilities if they graduate with a 2.7.

The more I think about it the more I kind of like the idea of excluding the bottom half of the MCAT testing population. If you exclude that bottom half which includes so many who have no business taking the test(the avg person who takes the MCAT and never applies to MD schools has around a 3.25) then you are left with the median test take getting about a 30, 60th percentile being a 31, 78th percentile being a 33 etc. That honestly sounds about right from my personal experience. From the large number of pre-meds I know of very various abilities and skills and work ethics varying from 2.9's to 4.0's that sounds like a relatively approriate scale. I'd say 30 is about the average of people I know. I'd say I probably know about 20% who hit 34+. Again this is just my personal experience and anecdotes, but I think that gives an idea for what the testing population and cohort is like if you exclude the clueless, those who have nobusiness taking the test or those that laughably are ill prepared or who should have voided but didnt.
 
My views are simple. Someone who scored a 39+ clearly has high intelligence because of strong analytical, reasoning and critical thinking skills. These are NOT innate but purely environmental and experiential. Sharpening such skills in early childhood helps significantly in the long run, but again, it's environmental, not innate.

It is also possible for someone with average reasoning skills to score a 39+ purely out of familiarity (i didn't say you need to be intelligent to get a 39+, but simply those who get a 39+ are intelligent). But you have to realize that such intelligence isn't beyond someone's capacity, and it is inaccurate to say that someone can't crack a 30-32 range with only good prep.

I think you guys are exaggerating the difficulty of the MCAT, and standardized exams in general, by making them seem much more difficult than normal. They really aren't if you are well prepared, confident and can think (as you should for a college student/grad).

Well I will agree with you that environment as a child is extremely important. In fact, if the same students who struggle with the MCAT now were put in a much more rigorous academic environment from childhood than they had previously, I believe they would have much greater academic prowess and this would also show on the MCAT.

Everything else, We must agree to disagree.
 
Ah, the good old SDN mantra that only the mentally handicapped could ever get stuck near the median MCAT score. Makes me laugh every time! Lawper holds an especially extreme position about this, he believes there is no such thing as intelligence (and that heritability studies and psychology are not real science) so anyone who studies properly should expect a 99.9th percentile score (42+ in his words). Mimelim also once told me that only about 5% of the population is incapable of being a physician, which means an IQ of 75+ is good to go.

I'm way on the opposite end, I think people have inherent cap-out points and studying can only get you to yours. I knew people in highschool that tried really, really hard to keep up in honors math and science classes and just couldn't get it. I've known people in college that tried really, really hard to do well (above-average) in prereqs and couldn't, costing a few their planned career.

As I've said before, effective prep is necessary but not sufficient for a strong MCAT (top fifth / 31+ / 510+). There are some people who could never break into 30s, even with unlimited prep and if their life depended on it. The crowd taking the MCAT is highly selected for, full of people that survived prereq weedout and prepped a bunch for what they know is a very important test. Effort alone isn't going to let everyone beat 4/5ths of med school hopefuls.
That is hardly "the opposite end." The opposite end would be hardline genetic determinism (at least with regards to intelligence.) I don't want to regurgitate old arguments again, but if anyone believe that intelligence is largely determined by environment and that their brain is some kind of spiritual amorphous blob that is immune to genetics than they are kind beyond saving tbh. Look, I get it, we are all descendants of The Enlightenment and we would like to believe in the infinite potential of human progress. Well, tough. The empirical data says otherwise. If anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff, see my thread here.
 
Thanks guys. I was definitely trying to make sure that an average intelligence person will have the capabilities of scoring in the top 16% given the proper studying habits. Thats relieving.
 
To get a 32 you needed to be in the top 16 percentile.

The thing is people with sub 3.0's also pass Step 1 on their first attempt the majority of time. The large majority of people who enter MD programs with 2.7's graduate medical school. The passing rate of Step 1 doesn't really do much for me. We all know the flaws in someone's academic capabilities if they graduate with a 2.7.

The more I think about it the more I kind of like the idea of excluding the bottom half of the MCAT testing population. If you exclude that bottom half which includes so many who have no business taking the test(the avg person who takes the MCAT and never applies to MD schools has around a 3.25) then you are left with the median test take getting about a 30, 60th percentile being a 31, 78th percentile being a 33 etc. That honestly sounds about right from my personal experience. From the large number of pre-meds I know of very various abilities and skills and work ethics varying from 2.9's to 4.0's that sounds like a relatively approriate scale. I'd say 30 is about the average of people I know. I'd say I probably know about 20% who hit 34+. Again this is just my personal experience and anecdotes, but I think that gives an idea for what the testing population and cohort is like if you exclude the clueless, those who have nobusiness taking the test or those that laughably are ill prepared or who should have voided but didnt.
The problem with this is that it would exclude a lot of highly sought after applicants imo (URMs and the like.)
 
That is hardly "the opposite end." The opposite end would be hardline genetic determinism (at least with regards to intelligence.) I don't want to regurgitate old arguments again, but if anyone believe that intelligence is largely determined by environment and that their brain is some kind of spiritual amorphous blob that is immune to genetics than they are kind beyond saving tbh. Look, I get it, we are all descendants of The Enlightenment and we would like to believe in the infinite potential of human progress. Well, tough. The empirical data says otherwise. If anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff, see my thread here.
I think potentials are genetically hard capped, nobody reasonable thinks environment holds NO influence in what is actually realized. I think we've always been pretty much in agreement on this topic though along with the other controversial favorites like AA, undergrad difficulties and moral phil
 
That is hardly "the opposite end." The opposite end would be hardline genetic determinism (at least with regards to intelligence.) I don't want to regurgitate old arguments again, but if anyone believe that intelligence is largely determined by environment and that their brain is some kind of spiritual amorphous blob that is immune to genetics than they are kind beyond saving tbh. Look, I get it, we are all descendants of The Enlightenment and we would like to believe in the infinite potential of human progress. Well, tough. The empirical data says otherwise. If anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff, see my thread here.

Not touching that thread since it's in the SP Forums. And intelligence isn't a single-factor category. You also really cannot deny the existence of many types of intelligence just by overplaying the effectiveness of IQ

I think potentials are genetically hard capped, nobody reasonable thinks environment holds NO influence in what is actually realized. I think we've always been pretty much in agreement on this topic though along with the other controversial favorites like AA, undergrad difficulties and moral phil

Ya agree to disagree then. We'll save it for another time.
 
The problem with this is that it would exclude a lot of highly sought after applicants imo (URMs and the like.)

While I get what you are saying
a) URMs are URMS for a reason-----not many of them apply to medical school, period. Only about 5,000 AFrican Americans the past 3 years have applied to MD schools with a sub 24 MCAT. Compare that to about 135000 people who have taken the MCAT hte past 3 years and hit below 25.
b) Even for URMs at sub 25 MCAT levels their acceptance rates start falling way off to below 35%. Even for as desperate as MD schools are to take on URMs, there comes a point where they even acknowledge how much of a risk it would be to take one on with a 21-22 type MCAT.

So no I dont really think we are excluding many of these "special" applicants.
 
Hey guys,

I'm really nervous about taking the Mcat that's coming up. I'm afraid that I'm not "smart" enough to get a high score on it. I have a 3.7 gpa but that was mostly from working my butt off. I'm afraid that no matter how hard I study, I just won't get a desirable score and it will ruin my dreams. I feel like anyone can get good grades by working hard enough but the mcat measures intelligence, reason AND knowledge. Anybody here feel the same or am I alone? 🙁
Grades aren't always everything 🙂 . I have a relatively lower GPA but got a much higher MCAT score than that GPA would have suggested. All you can do is study as hard as you can and do your best.
 
I think potentials are genetically hard capped, nobody reasonable thinks environment holds NO influence in what is actually realized. I think we've always been pretty much in agreement on this topic though along with the other controversial favorites like AA, undergrad difficulties and moral phil
Oh I know! I just wanted to point out that your position isn't extreme in the slightest.
Not touching that thread since it's in the SP Forums.
I don't blame you, it's where premeds go to die.
And intelligence isn't a single-factor category. You also really cannot deny the existence of many types of intelligence just by overplaying the effectiveness of IQ.
I have no doubt that you are a smart guy Lawper. So smart in fact, that you can convince yourself to support blatantly wrong ideas🙂. There are a lot of things wrong with your statement here and if you really want to have a discussion about it, my door (PM inbox) is always open.
While I get what you are saying
a) URMs are URMS for a reason-----not many of them apply to medical school, period. Only about 5,000 AFrican Americans the past 3 years have applied to MD schools with a sub 24 MCAT. Compare that to about 135000 people who have taken the MCAT hte past 3 years and hit below 25.
b) Even for URMs at sub 25 MCAT levels their acceptance rates start falling way off to below 35%. Even for as desperate as MD schools are to take on URMs, there comes a point where they even acknowledge how much of a risk it would be to take one on with a 21-22 type MCAT.

So no I dont really think we are excluding many of these "special" applicants.
Wait, did you say "sub-25?" I thought you said "sub-30." I have no problem with an automatic cutoff at 25 👍
 
I have no doubt that you are a smart guy Lawper. So smart in fact, that you can convince yourself to support blatantly wrong ideas🙂. There are a lot of things wrong with your statement here and if you really want to have a discussion about it, my door (PM inbox) is always open.

It's not blatantly wrong ideas because theories of intelligence aren't uniform. It's like any other psychological theory, which is why I always said psychology is a social science with many theories to have a broader perspective. The reports you listed were discussing g factors, which severely simplifies the concept of intelligence. Multiple intelligence is a strong possibility as well as experiential intelligence. I'm happy you found inspiration from these scientific reports, but generalization of such findings isn't straightforward. So I wouldn't go dismissing countering opinions to be "support of blatantly wrong ideas".

And like I told @efle, it's a topic to be saved for another time. Sadly, I don't have the incentive to personally PM you or others in the matter, but I'm always up for a good read. It keeps my mind occupied. 😉
 
It's not blatantly wrong ideas because theories of intelligence aren't uniform. It's like any other psychological theory, which is why I always said psychology is a social science with many theories to have a broader perspective. The reports you listed were discussing g factors, which severely simplifies the concept of intelligence. Multiple intelligence is a strong possibility as well as experiential intelligence. I'm happy you found inspiration from these scientific reports, but generalization of such findings isn't straightforward. So I wouldn't go dismissing countering opinions to be "support of blatantly wrong ideas"..
It was a bit of a snarky comment on my part, I apologize. Like I said, I think the statements you are making are problematic for multiple reasons and don't want to derail the thread, so I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" if we are stuck to communicating in this thread. But I do think you are wrong about the scientific consensus here as well. You are in good company though, mimelim seems to largely agree with you iirc.
 
It was a bit of a snarky comment on my part, I apologize. But I do think you are wrong about the scientific consensus here as well. Like I said, I don't want to derail the thread, so I guess we'll just "agree to disagree" if we are stuck to communicating in this thread.

Like I said, I'm always up for a good read. Maybe intelligence is more genetic than I thought, and I was just rejecting that all along to avoid discouraging people who were scoring low on the MCAT/practice tests. SDN already has a lot of negativity and stress involved and I don't want to aggravate that. That's why the actual psychological, scientific and philosophical implications of intelligence can be discussed privately.
 
Like I said, I'm always up for a good read. Maybe intelligence is more genetic than I thought, and I was just rejecting that all along to avoid discouraging people who were scoring low on the MCAT/practice tests. SDN already has a lot of negativity and stress involved and I don't want to aggravate that. That's why the actual psychological, scientific and philosophical implications of intelligence can be discussed privately.
See my edit. I think you and mimdlim's optimism (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the facts) is admirable.

@justanotherpremed1 FWIW, I think plenty of average Joes/Janes (including myself) can do very well on the MCAT with proper preparation. If you've survived the weedout thus far, then you likely have what it takes to do well. So chin up🙂
 
See my edit. I think you and mimdlim's optimism (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the facts) is admirable.

[B]@justanotherpremed1[/B] FWIW, I think plenty of average Joes/Janes (including myself) can do very well on the MCAT with proper preparation. If you've survived the weedout thus far, then you likely have what it takes to do well. So chin up🙂

The bold is what I was asserting all along until i got derailed into a debate about intelligence :whistle::whistle:

But yeah, that's the best way to approach the MCAT rather than viewing it as some dangerous and insurmountable beast.
 
Like I said, I'm always up for a good read. Maybe intelligence is more genetic than I thought, and I was just rejecting that all along to avoid discouraging people who were scoring low on the MCAT/practice tests. SDN already has a lot of negativity and stress involved and I don't want to aggravate that. That's why the actual psychological, scientific and philosophical implications of intelligence can be discussed privately.
Definitely agreed with this. Mcat's stressful enough without making people wonder about whether their innate capability will be the limiting factor no matter how much hard work they puts in
 
See my edit. I think you and mimdlim's optimism (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the facts) is admirable.

@justanotherpremed1 FWIW, I think plenty of average Joes/Janes (including myself) can do very well on the MCAT with proper preparation. If you've survived the weedout thus far, then you likely have what it takes to do well. So chin up🙂
Lol, you're calling yourself average? Don't you have an engineering degree from a UC?!

I'm with @efle on this one. Some people can study forever for the mcat and barely break 30. That said, there are others who underestimate their capabilities and are more than capable of surpassing the 90th percentile with the appropriate preparation.
 
The bold is what I was asserting all along until i got derailed into a debate about intelligence :whistle::whistle:

But yeah, that's the best way to approach the MCAT rather than viewing it as some dangerous and insurmountable beast.
Well when I say "very well," I mean ~33. I would discourage OP (or anyone else) from assuming that with proper preparation they can score >43. Not so much because of pessimism or intelligence or anything like that, but it's just very statistically unlikely and I think they are setting themselves up for disappointment.
 
Lol, you're calling yourself average? Don't you have an engineering degree from a UC?!

I'm with @efle on this one. Some people can study forever for the mcat and barely break 30. That said, there are others who underestimate their capabilities and are more than capable of surpassing the 90th percentile with the appropriate preparation.
Good memory and thanks for the compliment but I was mediocre at best. I had peers who were the top of their class with 20+ units and minimal effort
images
 
Top