Multiple MCAT Score Policy School List

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

MaybeDr

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
265
Reaction score
154
I've decided to share some info and the schools I've called. Please feel free to add to the list.
Albany Medical College: Looks at all considers most recent score
Albert Einstein: Most recent
Boston University: All scores
SUNY Buffalo: Highest score
Columbia: Highest score
Cooper: Highest score
Dartmouth: All scores, latest given most weight
Drexel: All but "interested in most recent"
Duke: emphasis on highest score
Eastern Virginia: Two most recent scores with a note on the highest score
Frank Netter: High score
Georgetown: Most recent
GWU: Superscore
Harvard: only looks at highest score
Hofstra: Highest score
JHU: Emphasis on most recent
Loyola: All scores, "highest score given most weight"
Medical College of Wisconsin: Super score
Michigan: Highest or all?
New York Medical College: Most recent two sets
Northwestern: Emphasis on highest composite score
NYU: High score
Oakland University: All scores
Ohio State: Highest only
Penn State: All scores
Rosalind Franklin: Most recent
Rush: Emphasis on highest "only"
Saint Louis: "Focus on high score"
Temple: Most recent
Thomas Jefferson: Average scores
Tufts: " Our policy is to consider the two most recent sets of scores and note the higher MCAT total of the two sets"
Tulane: High score
UCLA: All scores
UCSD: All scores
UCSF:Most recent
University of Cincinnati: Average scores
University of Colorado: High score
University of Illinois: Highest score
University of Miami: All scores most weight given to highest
UNMC: All scores
University of Pennsylvania: Most recent score
University of Pittsburgh: Highest score
University of Wisconsin: Average scores
Upstate: Average
USC: All scores
Utah: Recent only
Vanderbilt: Superscore
Vermont: All scores
VCU: Highest score
Virginia Tech: Looks at all considers highest
Wake Forest: All scores
Western Michigan: Highest score
Yale: Emphasis on recent


PLEASE identify any errors. I found one already that I corrected.

As gyngyn has stated below ALL scores are visible. Regardless of policy they are open to interpretation.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Members don't see this ad :)
SDNer HybridEarth was kind enough to call around and reports on who values what on MCAT retakes:

UIC (Illinois): ONLY considers highest score
Loyola: looks at differences between past two scores and want a significant increase
Northwestern: emphasis on highest composite score
Harvard: only looks at highest score
Duke: emphasis on highest composite score
Columbia: focus on most recent score
@HybridEarth for any more schools known from the calling process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is all info I got by calling admissions very casually. As @gyngyn said, be careful!!

Edit: adding some more that I forgot:

Albany Medical College: looks at both, "considers most recent score"

Virginia Tech: looks at both, "considers highest"

Univ. of Miami: highest

Johns Hopkins: emphasis on most recent

Columbia: emphasis on most recent

Yale: emphasis on recent

Rush: emphasis on highest "only"

Ohio state: highest only (also keep in mind they now require anatomy to be taken!!!)

Buffalo state: highest

George Washington: superscore

Utah: recent only

University of Pittsburgh: highest

University of Pennsylvania: looks at both, considers highest (I'm assuming they average in reality. This is my guess based on the tone of voice I heard)

Michigan: one answer said highest, by email they said they consider both. Extrapolate however you please
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
These policies were all gathered in January 2015 via e-mail. I have noticed some discrepancies between mine and the other posters in this thread, but I will leave mine as-is just because I have them on record in my e-mail.

-Albany: Most recent
-Rosalind Franklin: Most recent
-Drexel: All but "interested in most recent"
-Quinnipiac: Highest score
-Georgetown: Most recent
-Medical College of Wisconsin: Superscore
-NYMC: Last two, importance on most recent (may have been worded differently)
-Temple: Most recent
-Tufts: Last two, note the higher (may have been worded differently)
-GWU: Superscore
-Stritch: Last two, note the higher (may have been worded differently)
-Wake Forest: All, note the highest (may have been worded differently)
-Penn State: All scores considered (didn't say average)
-U of Illinois: Highest score
-Rush: Highest score
-Oakland: Holistic (never e-mailed; from website)
-UNMC: All scores

I seem to remember having more than this, but I can't find the document. If I can scrounge it up and find others, I will add.

EDIT: Here are the others

U of Miami: All, note most recent
EVMS: Highest Score
U of Vemont: All
VCU: Highest Score
Western Michigan: Highest Score
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Vanderbilt apparently superscores.
 
Clearly there is some variability as we each have some different values. I know wake forest's website says they take all scores.

Will clean up list tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Clearly there is some variability as we each have some different values. I know wake forest's website says they take the highest score.

Will clean up list tomorrow.

"Hello xxxx,

Thank you for your inquiry. We will look at all of the scores but take note of the highest.

Thanks,


Ashley xxxx, MPH
Admission
Officer"

That's what they sent me! But as gyngyn said, they all will view them in their own unique way.
 
@gyngyn @Goro @LizzyM When schools say they consider "all scores" what exactly does this mean? Do they decide on a single composite score by which they'll evaluate the student's multiple scores?
 
@HCHopeful if that's your school list, it's remarkably similar to mine not counting the reach schools I threw in. Are you an Illinois resident too?!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
"Hello xxxx,

Thank you for your inquiry. We will look at all of the scores but take note of the highest.

Thanks,


Ashley xxxx, MPH
Admission
Officer"

That's what they sent me! But as gyngyn said, they all will view them in their own unique way.
ugh I'm sorry I meant to say look at all scores... I corrected the "high score" to "all scores" on the list then wrote that they take high scores. Brain slow... today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The list has been updated. Total schools: 52
If anyone has anymore data please post it so we can get this closer to completion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@HCHopeful if that's your school list, it's remarkably similar to mine not counting the reach schools I threw in. Are you an Illinois resident too?!

It was my school list at one point, but no! I am a Nebraska resident and have decided to do Early Decision to UNMC after talking to a member of the admissions staff.

I think that particular school list would be remarkably similar to almost any applicant with a 65-71 LizzyM score ;)

Good luck with your application cycle!
 
I am concerned that applicants may not realize that "highest score" is more likely to mean that they report the highest score if the applicant is accepted. I happen to know that this is true for at least a few of the schools reported above.

You can't just keep taking the MCAT and expect that only the highest score will be considered!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I am concerned that applicants may not realize that "highest score" is more likely to mean that they report the highest score if the applicant is accepted. I happen to know that this is true for at least a few of the schools reported above.

You can't just keep taking the MCAT and expect that only the highest score will be considered!

I am glad you pointed this out. I've been wondering as much since I had gathered all of these and often thought that may be the case.

In the end, I just decided to think of all schools as "considering all," because as you said, each school has access to all of the scores. It is only human nature to see a mixture of a 33 and 28 and have something in the back of one's mind think, "Yeah that 33 is great, but that 28..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No, that's super scoring. "All scores" could mean that they average, or look for an upward trend. At the minimum, test retakes are expected to improve, and be consistent in improvement.

I've never seen the logic of super scoring. If one can't do well in three things at once, what does that bode for medical school?


@gyngyn @Goro @LizzyM When schools say they consider "all scores" what exactly does this mean? Do they decide on a single composite score by which they'll evaluate the student's multiple scores?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Case in point: I have a hard time believing that Harvard (which "only looks at highest score") would view someone who took the MCAT seven times and got:

Attempt 1: 40/45
Attempt 2: 10/45
Attempt 3: 10/45
Attempt 4: 10/45
Attempt 5: 5/45
Attempt 6: 2/45
Attempt 7: 38/45

is better than someone getting:

Attempt 1: 39/45


Or that GWU (which "superscores") would consider:
Attempt 1: 1/15/1
Attempt 2: 1/1/1
Attempt 3: 1/2/4
Attempt 4: 3/1/2
Attempt 5: 2/2/2
Attempt 6: 15/1/1
Attempt 7: 1/1/15

(Superscore = 45 but needed 7 attempts to reach it)

to be better than:

Attempt 1: 44/45
 
I am concerned that applicants may not realize that "highest score" is more likely to mean that they report the highest score if the applicant is accepted. I happen to know that this is true for at least a few of the schools reported above.

You can't just keep taking the MCAT and expect that only the highest score will be considered!

I completely agree.

I hope people will not actually take any of this information too seriously. My hope is that people in my situation will benefit from knowing which schools do not definitely average. That was the main point of doing this in the first place!
 
What is the point of a superscore. It just inflates their stats I guess
 
Last edited:
Case in point: I have a hard time believing that Harvard (which "only looks at highest score") would view someone who took the MCAT seven times and got:

Attempt 1: 40/45
Attempt 2: 10/45
Attempt 3: 10/45
Attempt 4: 10/45
Attempt 5: 5/45
Attempt 6: 2/45
Attempt 7: 38/45

is better than someone getting:

Attempt 1: 39/45


Or that GWU (which "superscores") would consider:
Attempt 1: 1/15/1
Attempt 2: 1/1/1
Attempt 3: 1/2/4
Attempt 4: 3/1/2
Attempt 5: 2/2/2
Attempt 6: 15/1/1
Attempt 7: 1/1/15

(Superscore = 45 but needed 7 attempts to reach it)

to be better than:

Attempt 1: 44/45
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, meaning "subjective", like @gyngyn said. Personally I would like to give credits for 7 attempts to get the maximum and superscore more than only 1 attempt, why? Because it is just like you do practice all the practices but in the harsh condition and not free. You show that you really do not give up and believe in yourself to get better at the subject that you were weak.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, meaning "subjective", like @gyngyn said. Personally I would like to give credits for 7 attempts to get the maximum and superscore more than only 1 attempt, why? Because it is just like you do practice all the practices but in the harsh condition and not free. You show that you really do not give up and believe in yourself to get better at the subject that you were weak.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly so let me confirm:

You are saying it is better to keep taking the test and show improvement over time than to just get one great score?

If so, then using this logic, someone who is capable of getting a 43 should intentionally take the MCAT 40 times (intentionally scoring a 0 or 1 the first time) and gradually "try" harder and harder until one tries his/her hardest on the last time and gets around a 43.

There is absolutely no way that someone who requires 40 tries to reach a 43 would be considered better than someone who took it once and got a 43. After all, you basically only get one shot at Step 1.

Also, as I noted above, using true superscoring would mean that someone with the following MCAT record:

4/5/3
2/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
15/1/1
1/15/1
1/1/15

(this is a superscored 45)

is considered better than a person taking it once and scoring

15/14/15

(this is a 44)

I know these are super extreme examples but I think the vast majority (if not all) of adcoms would agree that the most ideal MCAT score is a single great score.

Showing improvement is always good but is still not better than having a single great score. Otherwise, the rational thing to do would be what I illustrated above: namely, one should intentionally tank his/her earlier MCAT attempts and then gradually "try" harder. I highly doubt adcoms would approve of such an incentive structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly so let me confirm:

You are saying it is better to keep taking the test and show improvement over time than to just get one great score?

If so, then using this logic, someone who is capable of getting a 43 should intentionally take the MCAT 40 times (intentionally scoring a 0 or 1 the first time) and gradually "try" harder and harder until one tries his/her hardest on the last time and gets around a 43.

There is absolutely no way that someone who requires 40 tries to reach a 43 would be considered better than someone who took it once and got a 43. After all, you basically only get one shot at Step 1.

Also, as I noted above, using true superscoring would mean that someone with the following MCAT record:

4/5/3
2/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
15/1/1
1/15/1
1/1/15

(this is a superscored 45)

is considered better than a person taking it once and scoring

15/14/15

(this is a 44)

I know these are super extreme examples but I think the vast majority (if not all) of adcoms would agree that the most ideal MCAT score is a single great score.

Showing improvement is always good but is still not better than having a single great score. Otherwise, the rational thing to do would be what I illustrated above: namely, one should intentionally tank his/her earlier MCAT attempts and then gradually "try" harder. I highly doubt adcoms would approve of such an incentive structure.

You say this as a joke but a number of years ago there was somebody on here who worked at admissions for GW who said part of his job was literally putting each of the highest subsections of the MCAT for an applicant into the computer before the file was even reviewed by evaluators. So in this case, yes, that person has a 44. I wonder if GW has changed this policy. I think the other two schools known to superscore are Medical College of Wisconsin and Vanderbilt but I wonder if those schools ever actually a) see multiple scores(ie they dont have a system like GW) b) if they actually would even care except for all but the most extreme circumstances(ie 7 retakes instead of 2-3).
 
Case in point: I have a hard time believing that Harvard (which "only looks at highest score") would view someone who took the MCAT seven times and got:

Attempt 1: 40/45
Attempt 2: 10/45
Attempt 3: 10/45
Attempt 4: 10/45
Attempt 5: 5/45
Attempt 6: 2/45
Attempt 7: 38/45

is better than someone getting:

Attempt 1: 39/45


Or that GWU (which "superscores") would consider:
Attempt 1: 1/15/1
Attempt 2: 1/1/1
Attempt 3: 1/2/4
Attempt 4: 3/1/2
Attempt 5: 2/2/2
Attempt 6: 15/1/1
Attempt 7: 1/1/15

(Superscore = 45 but needed 7 attempts to reach it)

to be better than:

Attempt 1: 44/45
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly so let me confirm:

You are saying it is better to keep taking the test and show improvement over time than to just get one great score?

If so, then using this logic, someone who is capable of getting a 43 should intentionally take the MCAT 40 times (intentionally scoring a 0 or 1 the first time) and gradually "try" harder and harder until one tries his/her hardest on the last time and gets around a 43.

There is absolutely no way that someone who requires 40 tries to reach a 43 would be considered better than someone who took it once and got a 43. After all, you basically only get one shot at Step 1.

Also, as I noted above, using true superscoring would mean that someone with the following MCAT record:

4/5/3
2/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
2/3/2
1/2/1
1/3/4
5/3/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
1/1/1
15/1/1
1/15/1
1/1/15

(this is a superscored 45)

is considered better than a person taking it once and scoring

15/14/15

(this is a 44)

I know these are super extreme examples but I think the vast majority (if not all) of adcoms would agree that the most ideal MCAT score is a single great score.

Showing improvement is always good but is still not better than having a single great score. Otherwise, the rational thing to do would be what I illustrated above: namely, one should intentionally tank his/her earlier MCAT attempts and then gradually "try" harder. I highly doubt adcoms would approve of such an incentive structure.

It's fairly clear that superscoring is used to artificially boost the school's MCAT medians. It is one of the worst methods to deal with multiple MCAT attempts because it is so unstable. Averaging provides a stabilized result
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a valuable thread. Don't be deterred. If schools very openly and directly address the issue of how they evaluate multiple MCATs for applicants, like in their FAQs, where they know applicants are specifically interested in their policies because of the variability of method among all schools, I see no reason to be overly cynical and second-guess that they in fact really mean how they report scores for acceptees/matriculants. We all know that most or all schools report the highest for their own stats, and there's no reason to think they have their own FAQs confused with a different question. What would be the incentive of advertising that you consider all but give more weight to the most recent/highest and then secretly going against that and going with a straight average? And if those schools are lying, then why wouldn't we question the schools that openly advertise that they employ a straight average and suggest that they may in fact be giving more credit to the higher score? In other words, why does this discussion always get slanted in one direction, even when the data suggest otherwise? No doubt that everyone would prefer to hit a 525 on the first attempt. No argument there. But when the quoted number of applicants who do a re-take is in the 40-50% range of all applicants, we aren't talking about a tiny sliver that screws up with bad judgment, and we aren't accounting the the possibility that schools do view some aspects of an app, including measures to improve stats whether MCAT or GPA, as indicative of some of the very core competencies they say they are most interested in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a valuable thread. Don't be deterred. If schools very openly and directly address the issue of how they evaluate multiple MCATs for applicants, like in their FAQs, where they know applicants are specifically interested in their policies because of the variability of method among all schools, I see no reason to be overly cynical and second-guess that they in fact really mean how they report scores for acceptees/matriculants. We all know that most or all schools report the highest for their own stats, and there's no reason to think they have their own FAQs confused with a different question. What would be the incentive of advertising that you consider all but give more weight to the most recent/highest and then secretly going against that and going with a straight average? And if those schools are lying, then why wouldn't we question the schools that openly advertise that they employ a straight average and suggest that they may in fact be giving more credit to the higher score? In other words, why does this discussion always get slanted in one direction, even when the data suggest otherwise? No doubt that everyone would prefer to hit a 525 on the first attempt. No argument there. But when the quoted number of applicants who do a re-take is in the 40-50% range of all applicants, we aren't talking about a tiny sliver that screws up with bad judgment, and we aren't accounting the the possibility that schools do view some aspects of an app, including measures to improve stats whether MCAT or GPA, as indicative of some of the very core competencies they say they are most interested in.

With regard to the first bolded statement: gyngyn (an actual adcom) has said:

Remember that no matter what the party line may be at any given school, individual evaluators are prone to idiosyncratic interpretation.

Note that the interests in reporting scores for the public vs. evaluating applicants are distinct.

For reporting scores for the public, the incentive is to show the highest score possible. This will make your school look better in the rankings and in public perception.

For evaluating applicants, the incentive is to roughly gauge one's abilities/preparedness. Blindly believing that a superscored 43 === single try 43 would undermine this interest.


With regard to the incentive of advertising that you consider all but give more weight to the most recent/highest and then secretly going against that and going with a straight average - well here are a few reasons this could happen:

1) Chair of adcom committee believes this. However, subordinates may not fully buy in. And for those people who are against superscoring, they may still subconsciously/implicitly view applicants who benefit from superscoring as worse than applicants who had a single great score.
2) Attracts more applicants to apply. It is always in the school's interest to make the school seem super welcoming publicly but that doesn't mean that everything is viewed equally. For example, many/most schools advertise that there is no minimum MCAT (omg so welcoming! this schools uses such holistic admissions!) but you better believe that if you scored a 3/45 that you would pretty much be auto-rejected on the spot.


With regard to why the argument always gets slanted in one direction, that is because of the incentive structure. Let's say you are reporting community service hours. People rarely question if you under-reported your community services hours. People are much more likely to question whether you exaggerated them. Likewise, schools are incentivized to publicly be welcoming and show exaggerated (superscored) scores but internally are incentivized to just care about getting a true indication of one's readiness/ability.

Btw: I don't doubt that adcoms love improvement and may "weigh" the highest score over the lower scores. I'm just saying that just because a school publicly says it will superscore and/or weigh the highest score more greatly does not mean that it will always actually happen in practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
When a school publishes their policy (not the interviewers, not the adcom, not the dean, but the school AS A WHOLE), AS A MATTER OF POLICY, about how they evaluate multiple MCATs of applicants (as distinct from what schools report as outcome data where no one questions why they would report highest score), I will tend to think another agenda is at play if one is claiming that the schools are lying about something that they bothered to publish as their official policy (which is of course different than the idiosyncrasies of any one interviewer).
 
When a school publishes their policy (not the interviewers, not the adcom, not the dean, but the school AS A WHOLE), AS A MATTER OF POLICY, about how they evaluate multiple MCATs of applicants (as distinct from what schools report as outcome data where no one questions why they would report highest score), I will tend to think another agenda is at play if one is claiming that the schools are lying about something that they bothered to publish as their official policy (which is of course different than the idiosyncrasies of any one interviewer).

I would guess that it is more likely that schools who claim to average actually more often than not give the benefit of the doubt to the higher score. The fact that this possibility never gets mentions when repeatedly underscoring the converse seems telling.
 
This is a valuable thread. Don't be deterred. If schools very openly and directly address the issue of how they evaluate multiple MCATs for applicants, like in their FAQs, where they know applicants are specifically interested in their policies because of the variability of method among all schools, I see no reason to be overly cynical and second-guess that they in fact really mean how they report scores for acceptees/matriculants. We all know that most or all schools report the highest for their own stats, and there's no reason to think they have their own FAQs confused with a different question. What would be the incentive of advertising that you consider all but give more weight to the most recent/highest and then secretly going against that and going with a straight average? And if those schools are lying, then why wouldn't we question the schools that openly advertise that they employ a straight average and suggest that they may in fact be giving more credit to the higher score? In other words, why does this discussion always get slanted in one direction, even when the data suggest otherwise? No doubt that everyone would prefer to hit a 525 on the first attempt. No argument there. But when the quoted number of applicants who do a re-take is in the 40-50% range of all applicants, we aren't talking about a tiny sliver that screws up with bad judgment, and we aren't accounting the the possibility that schools do view some aspects of an app, including measures to improve stats whether MCAT or GPA, as indicative of some of the very core competencies they say they are most interested in.

justadream gave a very good summary on this but Ill just add somethings
a) There is more than one school on that list above which used some form of "use the highest/most recent score in their evaluation" where from people I know who work at admisssion at that school when I have talked to them have told me many(or at least some) individual evaluators will average scores at that school.
b) Out of curiosity I have called schools in the past to see what they have to say. The same school has said rather different things on different instances of me calling.
c) I can absolutely 100% guarantee you there are a number of schools on here that list "we'll use the highest score/most recent" but still consider all even if they dont formally average.

This amongst other things is why I just never put any stock in these threads and why they can actually be harmful because they could potentially give such a false representation of what goes on.

I will give you two examples of how these type of threads can be "wrong" just to illustrate my point.

Here is one of these threads from 2011
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-score-as-opposed-to-most-recent-mcat.564571/
It says Stony Brook will use the highest score in admission

Here is Stony Brooks actual stance on the matter
https://medicine.stonybrookmedicine.edu/admissions/faq
"If an applicant has taken multiple MCAT exams, scores are averaged".

Stony Brook might have changed their policy the past 4 years but I certainly doubt it. And this is a rare case of a school actually being transparent about it on their website.

Wisconsin per this thread has been listed as "Average of scores".
Here is the school websites stance on the matter
http://www.med.wisc.edu/education/md/admissions/frequently-asked-questions-faqs/108

"As part of our holistic review, Admissions Committee members may interpret multiple MCAT scores in the way they feel is most appropriate and may consider the reasons an applicant took the MCAT more than once." So again you can see, what is said on the phone isnt a perfect match at all with what's said on the website. The website line largely is just lip service.

These are two rare examples where you will find a school explicitly say something valuable about their multiple MCAT policy. But you can bet what happens behind closed doors is different than what is said to the applicants face. That's my point.

Im not a huge fan of how schools go about relaying their policy to applicants, but by and large it is done because they dont want to restrict themselves to any policy. Some schools average strictly no matter what. But there are others will how likely they are to use an average of scores for the evaluation can depend on a) the difference in time between when the scores are taken b) just how big of a gap there are in the scores. These are two of many other factors. That's another reason why you just wont get a good answer out of this question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
justadream gave a very good summary on this but Ill just add somethings
a) There is more than one school on that list above which used some form of "use the highest/most recent score in their evaluation" where from people I know who work at admisssion at that school when I have talked to them have told me many(or at least some) individual evaluators will average scores at that school.
b) Out of curiosity I have called schools in the past to see what they have to say. The same school has said rather different things on different instances of me calling.
c) I can absolutely 100% guarantee you there are a number of schools on here that list "we'll use the highest score/most recent" but still consider all even if they dont formally average.

This amongst other things is why I just never put any stock in these threads and why they can actually be harmful because they could potentially give such a false representation of what goes on.

I will give you two examples of how these type of threads can be "wrong" just to illustrate my point.

Here is one of these threads from 2011
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-score-as-opposed-to-most-recent-mcat.564571/
It says Stony Brook will use the highest score in admission

Here is Stony Brooks actual stance on the matter
https://medicine.stonybrookmedicine.edu/admissions/faq
"If an applicant has taken multiple MCAT exams, scores are averaged".

Stony Brook might have changed their policy the past 4 years but I certainly doubt it. And this is a rare case of a school actually being transparent about it on their website.

Wisconsin per this thread has been listed as "Average of scores".
Here is the school websites stance on the matter
http://www.med.wisc.edu/education/md/admissions/frequently-asked-questions-faqs/108

"As part of our holistic review, Admissions Committee members may interpret multiple MCAT scores in the way they feel is most appropriate and may consider the reasons an applicant took the MCAT more than once." So again you can see, what is said on the phone isnt a perfect match at all with what's said on the website. The website line largely is just lip service.

These are two rare examples where you will find a school explicitly say something valuable about their multiple MCAT policy. But you can bet what happens behind closed doors is different than what is said to the applicants face. That's my point.

Im not a huge fan of how schools go about relaying their policy to applicants, but by and large it is done because they dont want to restrict themselves to any policy. Some schools average strictly no matter what. But there are others will how likely they are to use an average of scores for the evaluation can depend on a) the difference in time between when the scores are taken b) just how big of a gap there are in the scores. These are two of many other factors. That's another reason why you just wont get a good answer out of this question.

I'm not necessarily vouching for the statements listed by schools for this thread. Not sure where all that info came from. My point is that if a school actively publishes, like in FAQs, their policy, I see no reason to assume they are lying....unless, we want to assume they are lying about everything instead of this one particularly contentious issue on SDN. Schools publish this info in their FAQs or in other similar ways right along with many other issues pertaining to how they handle things...like their policy on updates and such, LORs, community college credits, etc, etc. I'm having a very hard time believing that they lie about all of them, or that, conversely, they only lie about this one that we continually debate on SDN. And if that is the stance, then why isn't possible the schools that publish that they average are lying too? How come the distortion is only allowed to go in one direction according to some?

When you made all of these calls (multiple calls to the same schools?), who did you speak to? An admin asst? The dean? A student interviewer? I'm curious, who do they put you through to, and what do you tell them about yourself to get them to share this info?
 
I'm not necessarily vouching for the statements listed by schools for this thread. Not sure where all that info came from. My point is that if a school actively publishes, like in FAQs, their policy, I see no reason to assume they are lying....unless, we want to assume they are lying about everything instead of this one particularly contentious issue on SDN. Schools publish this info in their FAQs or in other similar ways right along with many other issues pertaining to how they handle things...like their policy on updates and such, LORs, community college credits, etc, etc. I'm having a very hard time believing that they lie about all of them, or that, conversely, they only lie about this one that we continually debate on SDN. And if that is the stance, then why isn't possible the schools that publish that they average are lying too? How come the distortion is only allowed to go in one direction according to some?

When you made all of these calls (multiple calls to the same schools?), who did you speak to? An admin asst? The dean? A student interviewer? I'm curious, who do they put you through to, and what do you tell them about yourself to get them to share this info?

I can certainly understand your position and I definitely agree with fair amount of it. It is what I would consider disingenous on the part of the schools when applicants call them and they say "well just use your highest score" when in fact that isnt the case. Part of it might just be the person on the phone doesnt know any better. But I doubt that's the main reason. And if it were schools could easily put someone more informed on the phone or just inform that person who answers calls about their policy. So yeah, Im not a huge fan of it; they could be much more transparent about if if they desired but they choose not to.

This is part of what admission is ultimately. Everybody has a vested interest in what is best for them and individual schools are no different. Discouraging applicants from applying when saying "we average scores" or "some of our ADCOMs average scores(but not all)" isnt in their best interest. You could argue in theory "well maybe schools are disingenous the other way" and "maybe they say they average just to scare applicants into only taking it once". But there is alot less incentive on the schools individual part to do this and personally from my time talking to those on the other side of admission, Ive never heard anything remotely close to this happening.

It's also easy for applicants to misinterpret such statements. The truth of the matter is for many schools its not as simple as "we average" or we "just use the highest". All scores are considered and how they are interpreted will vary, sometimes rather significantly. There's just no great way to message that over the phone. I dont agree with the alternative schools have choosen necessairly, but I can see how it has arisen. It relates to the idea of schools doing silent rejections or waiting 6+ months after someone has been rejected to inform them(when the school knew all along they were never getting a II). Yes, it shows a lack of transparency, but again those moves are done because they are in the best interest of the school. There a number of things an individual school might do or things that might be said/done in evaluation/admission committee meetings theyd never want the public to know about.

As for whom I called often it was administrative assistants. Ended up talking to one dean I think. Some of the people I would call were directly involved in admission, some werent. You could often ask certain questions to tease out how informed they were/how high up they were. I did speak to some student workers and you could tell immeadiately who they were; I largely just discounted/took with two grains of salt alot of what they said. Part of my point is though most people arent going to distinguish these types of people; I only did this because I was aware going in some people who pick up the phone arent that informed. If you dont account for this and just call like many do, that's just more spreading of misinformation. Even amongst those who I got the sense were more informed/had a more direct role in admission, what they said differed despite being in the same school. So I would say it differs.
 
I can certainly understand your position and I definitely agree with fair amount of it. It is what I would consider disingenous on the part of the schools when applicants call them and they say "well just use your highest score" when in fact that isnt the case. Part of it might just be the person on the phone doesnt know any better. But I doubt that's the main reason. And if it were schools could easily put someone more informed on the phone or just inform that person who answers calls about their policy. So yeah, Im not a huge fan of it; they could be much more transparent about if if they desired but they choose not to.

Yeah, I'm not debating or talking about what people may say over the phone. I'm talking about what they have published in written form, right along with a host of other issues that come up in terms of schools letting applicants know what their policies are (like Harvard writes that you can't apply there more than twice). My point is that I doubt schools are putting stuff in writing about how applicants are evaluated that really means using highest scores only for acceptees for the sole purpose of impression management on stats. Every school can do that whether they publish that they average for applicants or don't average.

I understand that there is no debate about an applicant's best bet is to hit a high score on the first attempt. That obviously is "THE answer," which no one contests. But given that 40-50% of applicants have more than one MCAT (I think you cited that stat), there also obviously is a huge pool of applicants that have a re-take. I would guess that even for schools that say very clearly that they average that some of the analysis and treatment of the scores does happen idiosyncratically on the part of different evaluators but also based on how the scores are interpreted in the whole context of applications. Regarding the latter, that's why I think it's possible some might even view substantial improvement on the MCAT as a really good thing.

But in some sense none of this matters, right? Notwithstanding all of the various cautions, and even with a full concession that scores are always averaged, the applicant absolutely may need to do a re-take. Some are going to need a higher score period, and if they come up with that against the percentages you've references, then I say good for them. If they only get "half" of the benefit of a higher score that doesn't diminish that they did indeed need a higher score. And I think there are ways to credit the first-time high scorer without requiring a re-taker to score twice as high as that high scorer to be considering in the realm of the first-timer. Do we really want to say that a first-time 35 is more naturally gifted than than a candidate who hits 40 after a 30? What if we knew the first-time 35 guy could never hit 40 with further studying and multiple re-takes?
 
What's texas' schools stance on retakes? I have 3...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1) My point is that I doubt schools are putting stuff in writing about how applicants are evaluated that really means using highest scores only for acceptees for the sole purpose of impression management on stats. Every school can do that whether they publish that they average for applicants or don't average.

2) I would guess that even for schools that say very clearly that they average that some of the analysis and treatment of the scores does happen idiosyncratically on the part of different evaluators but also based on how the scores are interpreted in the whole context of applications. Regarding the latter, that's why I think it's possible some might even view substantial improvement on the MCAT as a really good thing.

3) If they only get "half" of the benefit of a higher score that doesn't diminish that they did indeed need a higher score.

4) And I think there are ways to credit the first-time high scorer without requiring a re-taker to score twice as high as that high scorer to be considering in the realm of the first-timer. Do we really want to say that a first-time 35 is more naturally gifted than than a candidate who hits 40 after a 30? What if we knew the first-time 35 guy could never hit 40 with further studying and multiple re-takes?

I can certainly see your points. I wont lie the first time I heard much of this from those I know personally on the other side of this and from ADCOMs here I had a number of the similar reactions that you did.

In regards to your points I edited and numbered.

1) I wouldnt call it "impression management of stats" as much as schools dont want to discourage applications. It's in their best interest to get as many as possible. And you are right, schools are careful about what they publish online. I actually had an interesting discussion with an ADCOM I know well over winter break about something similar to this. We were talking about how Emory this past year decided to post they will screen out any MCAT score below 27. Now as this admissions member tells me they spent alot of time trying to decide what number they should publicly publish. The difference between 27 vs 28 as an example doesnt sound like it matters much for a school with a 35 MCAT but it does. There are absolutely 100% URMs with 3.7/27's who interview at Emory every year. If the cut off was set to 28, they would be out of luck. Schools are under ALOT of pressure externally and internally to accept URM candidates and it has effects on the school. Even losing a few could drop their URM matriculant % a little bit which could be enough to cause ramifications. Emory also makes many many thousands of dollars each year from those with very low stats applying who now might seeing this. Really the whole discussion just showed me how even the most little things that seem obvious like "you need a 27 at least to have a chance at a school with a 35 median" often can still discourage lots of applications, even from some the school might be interested in. As for the MCAT retake subject, youll notice alot of websites dont touch the subject and put anything published on the matter. That's not a coincidence. As for those who do, it's just very hard for certain ADCOMs even at a school that publishes "we use the highest score" to "unsee" bad scores. That's one of the main problems.

2) You know there was a former ADCOM I was talking to a while ago about this who is a resident and an MCAT tutor on here. S/he basically made the same point you did; our school wouldnt look at a 25 and 33 as much different than the 33 and would give "credit" for the improvement shown. It was interesting hearing their persepctive on the manner; I think they were honestly really surprised that schools look at multiple MCATs the way they do and the way gyngyn talks about. They didnt question it, they just didnt realize or ever even consider it. It's just a matter of perspective. There are schools/evaluators out there I know that by and large will just use your higher score mostly and give you the benefit of the doubt even though they would never directly admit to it. It's just people tend to assume these are the vast majority which certainly isnt true.

3) It's not "diminishing" the accomplishment per se but many ADCOMs look at it like "we need to use what the evidence tells us to do" and not "what feels right". To them the evidence says average so we have to average becuase that's the best predictor of medical school success. Now I disagree that's the best way to interpret hte evidence but there way of viewing things is "we are making an evidence based decision" and that's what counts to them.

4) This kind of gets to 3) for me and what I said a couple days ago. Big jumps are rare things. They stand out. They make you wonder why they happened and bring upon a set of questions. Likely something was off the first time if someone goes from 30 to 36 and that first time still matters. You could still have questions about a "36" taken once, but given how uncommon the 30 to 36 jump is, it just brings on more questions that are more likely to be relevant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I can certainly see your points. I wont lie the first time I heard much of this from those I know personally on the other side of this and from ADCOMs here I had a number of the similar reactions that you did.

In regards to your points I edited and numbered.

1) I wouldnt call it "impression management of stats" as much as schools dont want to discourage applications. It's in their best interest to get as many as possible. And you are right, schools are careful about what they publish online. I actually had an interesting discussion with an ADCOM I know well over winter break about something similar to this. We were talking about how Emory this past year decided to post they will screen out any MCAT score below 27. Now as this admissions member tells me they spent alot of time trying to decide what number they should publicly publish. The difference between 27 vs 28 as an example doesnt sound like it matters much for a school with a 35 MCAT but it does. There are absolutely 100% URMs with 3.7/27's who interview at Emory every year. If the cut off was set to 28, they would be out of luck. Schools are under ALOT of pressure externally and internally to accept URM candidates and it has effects on the school. Even losing a few could drop their URM matriculant % a little bit which could be enough to cause ramifications. Emory also makes many many thousands of dollars each year from those with very low stats applying who now might seeing this. Really the whole discussion just showed me how even the most little things that seem obvious like "you need a 27 at least to have a chance at a school with a 35 median" often can still discourage lots of applications, even from some the school might be interested in. As for the MCAT retake subject, youll notice alot of websites dont touch the subject and put anything published on the matter. That's not a coincidence. As for those who do, it's just very hard for certain ADCOMs even at a school that publishes "we use the highest score" to "unsee" bad scores. That's one of the main problems.

2) You know there was a former ADCOM I was talking to a while ago about this who is a resident and an MCAT tutor on here. S/he basically made the same point you did; our school wouldnt look at a 25 and 33 as much different than the 33 and would give "credit" for the improvement shown. It was interesting hearing their persepctive on the manner; I think they were honestly really surprised that schools look at multiple MCATs the way they do and the way gyngyn talks about. They didnt question it, they just didnt realize or ever even consider it. It's just a matter of perspective. There are schools/evaluators out there I know that by and large will just use your higher score mostly and give you the benefit of the doubt even though they would never directly admit to it. It's just people tend to assume these are the vast majority which certainly isnt true.

3) It's not "diminishing" the accomplishment per se but many ADCOMs look at it like "we need to use what the evidence tells us to do" and not "what feels right". To them the evidence says average so we have to average becuase that's the best predictor of medical school success. Now I disagree that's the best way to interpret hte evidence but there way of viewing things is "we are making an evidence based decision" and that's what counts to them.

4) This kind of gets to 3) for me and what I said a couple days ago. Big jumps are rare things. They stand out. They make you wonder why they happened and bring upon a set of questions. Likely something was off the first time if someone goes from 30 to 36 and that first time still matters. You could still have questions about a "36" taken once, but given how uncommon the 30 to 36 jump is, it just brings on more questions that are more likely to be relevant.

Thanks, I definitely appreciate how exhaustive you try to be, and your willingness to note evidence to the contrary of the prevailing sentiment here, like citing those who do in fact favor the higher score.

Regarding the Emory example, I can't imagine a non-URM/especially ORM, even taking a flyer on an Emory with a 27-29, and I imagine most savvy applicants wouldn't apply with a 30/31 either unless they know they have something very, very desirable compared to others. Now, and here's the rub, I think an ORM will be very tempted to apply to Emory and schools at that level if they jumped from a 29 to a 34/35/36.

Regarding big jumps are rare, it's interesting to me that the rareness in this particular instance would be interpreted more often as fluke vs better assessment of talent. Big jumps aren't more rare than first-time 37/38+'s, are they?

As I noted in another post, a big chunk of applicants are going to need a re-take regardless of this discussion and regardless of what policy schools use. That said, these same applicants definitely could use more clarity on the policies of individual schools in order to decide where to apply.

One last point. Jefferson is frequently highlighted as a school that strictly averages (and indeed I think one of studies you posted originated from Jeff). On the other hand, I'm not sure there is a school that gets mentioned on SDN more favorably on SDN in terms of being personalized, wholistic, etc, etc. When these applicants who email Brooks and Callahan and get a call back and than a II 2 days later, I guessing that the MCAT average has little to do with the offer (as long as it is reasonably within range). So what a school says they do on one thing very well may be counter-balanced by something else in their processes.

Oh, and one other last thing. Would you assume, and this is based on the averaging thesis, that a first-time 35 is more talented than a 30 that goes to a 40. In that system, they're both 35s, but how do we know the first person could ever hit 40?
 
1) Regarding the Emory example, I can't imagine a non-URM/especially ORM, even taking a flyer on an Emory with a 27-29,

2) Regarding big jumps are rare, it's interesting to me that the rareness in this particular instance would be interpreted more often as fluke vs better assessment of talent. Big jumps aren't more rare than first-time 37/38+'s, are they?

3) these same applicants definitely could use more clarity on the policies of individual schools in order to decide where to apply.

4) I guessing that the MCAT average has little to do with the offer (as long as it is reasonably within range). So what a school says they do on one thing very well may be counter-balanced by something else in their processes.

5) Would you assume, and this is based on the averaging thesis, that a first-time 35 is more talented than a 30 that goes to a 40. In that system, they're both 35s, but how do we know the first person could ever hit 40?

1) Take a look at how many schools take 90+% IS applicants and yet how many OOS applicants still apply. MY point is dont underestimate how many clueless applicants they are who think theyll be the "one guy" who Emory shows interest in with a 27. People dont do their HW and you can bet Emory profits heavily from it every year
https://www.aamc.org/download/321442/data/factstablea1.pdf

2) Both are rare but the big improvement implies something went wrong the first time and the reasons behind something going wrong and an applicant not performing to their full potential are what cause the concern. It makes you wonder if not fulfilling their full potential comes up in other things they do.

3) Yep, for sure. No debate here.

4) Its funny you brought up Jefferson there was somebody a week ago who posted with an 18 MCAT retaken to a 32 and they called Jefferson for advice. Jeffferon's advice was to retake...why? Because to them that will always be a 25 and the only way to get your MCAT into a more competitive range is to improve your average. Note this is not advice I would ever support and it kind of shows insistence on using an "average" at all costs. Jefferson is a fairly hollistic school but their average stats are still pretty high compared to most lower tiers. So to some schools, they really will go head over heel with the "we must average scores no matter what" policy.

5) It's not an issue of the 35 vs 40 having more potential. Most ADCOMs and schools wont look at those as much different and think both applicants have good potential. It's just the idea that you didnt give it your all the first time around or didnt fully utilize your ability/potential the first time that can start raising questions about you like I talked about in 2). Now I agree that is kind of unfair to the 30 to 40 scorer, but I think there are people who will raise such questions about them for reasons I just descried.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
2) Both are rare but the big improvement implies something went wrong the first time and the reasons behind something going wrong and an applicant not performing to their full potential are what cause the concern. It makes you wonder if not fulfilling their full potential comes up in other things they do.

There's the rub. I can see 18 to 32 example raising an eyebrow, but I can't see all examples as yielding the "what other bad judgments will the applicant make?" I think that is just a enormous presumption to make. IMHO a 28 to a 34 or 30 to 35, shouldn't be treated like herpes...or like an IA, especially when we're talking about 20, 21, 22 year olds. It's a huge test. Everyone knows that, and I can't bring myself to make huge judgments about someone when there is a big element of the unknown even for those who believe they are immaculately prepared. And the fact that 40-50% re-take IMO bolsters my view. If it was 10% and we could better isolate that 10% make a terrible decision then I could see the inclination to penalize but not when half to close to half of the whole pool is involved. To me, the general applicant who hits a 28-30 and then takes the challenge to score more competitively and then does so should be credited with doing so (even if they aren't viewed as exactly the same as a first-timer).
 
It's a huge test. Everyone knows that, and I can't bring myself to make huge judgments about someone when there is a big element of the unknown even for those who believe they are immaculately prepared. And the fact that 40-50% re-take IMO bolsters my view. If it was 10% and we could better isolate that 10% make a terrible decision then I could see the inclination to penalize but not when half to close to half of the whole pool is involved. To me, the general applicant who hits a 28-30 and then takes the challenge to score more competitively and then does so should be credited with doing so (even if they aren't viewed as exactly the same as a first-timer).
Nevertheless, we must and we do. If applicants are unaware of the fact that multiple scores are open to broadly variable interpretation, they are poorly informed and thus at an unnecessary disadvantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's probably because you don't have to teach these people; gyngyn and I do.


There's the rub. I can see 18 to 32 example raising an eyebrow, but I can't see all examples as yielding the "what other bad judgments will the applicant make?" I think that is just a enormous presumption to make. IMHO a 28 to a 34 or 30 to 35, shouldn't be treated like herpes...or like an IA, especially when we're talking about 20, 21, 22 year olds. It's a huge test. Everyone knows that, and I can't bring myself to make huge judgments about someone when there is a big element of the unknown even for those who believe they are immaculately prepared. And the fact that 40-50% re-take IMO bolsters my view. If it was 10% and we could better isolate that 10% make a terrible decision then I could see the inclination to penalize but not when half to close to half of the whole pool is involved. To me, the general applicant who hits a 28-30 and then takes the challenge to score more competitively and then does so should be credited with doing so (even if they aren't viewed as exactly the same as a first-timer).
 
Nevertheless, we must. If applicants are unaware of the fact that multiple scores are open to broadly variable interpretation, they are poorly informed and thus at a disadvantage.

If you are doing that because you feel you must, as opposed to suggesting some might or the whole deal is "open to interpretation," then IMO you are doing applicants a real disservice. Would you advise the 50% of the total pool who do a re-take NOT to re-take? Have you personally never given an applicant the benefit of the doubt on a higher score if the rest of the app seemed to warrant it?

And even if applicants are aware, that doesn't change the fact that a good portion of them will still need to re-take. Or should they simply not apply at all and just pack it in when they don't get a great score the first time? The overall pool of test-takers is pretty strong. Not hitting the 95th percentile on a first attempt doesn't suggest anything definitive to me.
 
If you are doing that because you feel you must, as opposed to suggesting some might or the whole deal is "open to interpretation," then IMO you are doing applicants a real disservice. Would you advise the 50% of the total pool who do a re-take NOT to re-take? Have you personally never given an applicant the benefit of the doubt on a higher score if the rest of the app seemed to warrant it?

And even if applicants are aware, that doesn't change the fact that a good portion of them will still need to re-take. Or should they simply not apply at all and just pack it in when they don't get a great score the first time? The overall pool of test-takers is pretty strong. Not hitting the 95th percentile on a first attempt doesn't suggest anything definitive to me.
I don't "feel" that I must. I really have to make decisions with the best information I have.
And, from what I see, more than half of re-takers are not helping their cause.
 
That's probably because you don't have to teach these people; gyngyn and I do.

Really? A little self-serious, no?

I bet you've had more than a few students in your time who had a "successful" re-take who ended up being among your better students? And I bet that is true for your colleague as well.
 
Nevertheless, we must. If applicants are unaware of the fact that multiple scores are open to broadly variable interpretation, they are poorly informed and thus at a disadvantage.

Well Ill ask then what do you make of these threads where applicants call schools and so many of these schools says "we'll use the highest score" when they ask how multiple MCATs are viewed? In some ways, you could say schools are helping to spread this a little. I dont think people are lying by what they are reporting; I genuinely believe the schools they are calling are telling them this, whether it is some intern, or someone higher above. From my experience, they have done this as well when I have called.
 
Well Ill ask then what do you make of these threads where applicants call schools and so many of these schools says "we'll use the highest score" when they ask how multiple MCATs are viewed? In some ways, you could say schools are helping to spread this a little. I dont think people are lying by what they are reporting; I genuinely believe the schools they are calling are telling them this, whether it is some intern, or someone higher above. From my experience, they have done this as well when I have called.

I buy many of the problems often cited that come with multiple MCAT scores. Poor preparation, mental breakdown on the first test/anxiety, not taking the test seriously etc. All of that is fair game. But I dont know if penalizing applicants for being "poorly informed" is what I would use as a main reason for why multiple MCATs are problematic. It's not like there is anywhere close to a universal approach to how ADCOMs/schools view this either which is why I have a harder time questioning applicants judgment skills on it when even ADCOMs might be so unaware of other ADCOMs polices on the matter. As an example, your school and LizzyMs school view a retaken 34 that improves 6 points far far differently.
In a situation in which an important aspect of the application is open to very different interpretations, an applicant is well-served to avoid it if at all possible. I'm not blaming them for being poorly informed. I'm doing my best to inform them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
In a situation in which an important aspect of the application is open to very different interpretations, an applicant is well-served to avoid it if at all possible. I'm not blaming them for being poorly informed. I'm doing my best to inform them.

And even if they are fully informed a large percentage are still going to need a re-take. Doing one's best the first time I'm sure is what most think they are in fact doing. By the laws of mathematics and how scores are derived based on percentiles 80% of the pool can't hit the 95th percentile. That doesn't yield a conclusion that there are no great future physicians among the other 95%.

My gosh, how do you and @Goro feel about all the 27-29 DO students being let loose on the public???
 
Top