Myth about MCAT?

[decafplease]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There seems to be a thought in the premed community that each person can only improve their score so much, that you walk into your prep course or start your studying with a predetermined range that you can score, and that's it. Kind of the "I did my best and got a 29" sort of thing.

Is that true? If I REALLY work for a 35+, can I do it? If my practice exams aren't in that range, if I study more and test more, will my score improve? I'd like to think that's the way it is, but I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion.

So here it is:

Is there a MCAT score ceiling for each student? If so, what determines the ceiling?

 

[Perrotfish]

The verbal portion of the test is basically designed to be an intelligence test. If they designed it right, there should be a ceeling for each candidate

The other two sections of the test? Sky's the limit.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

The verbal portion of the test is basically designed to be an intelligence test. If they designed it right, there should be a ceeling for each candidate

The other two sections of the test? Sky's the limit.

Have you taken one of the recent tests, BS definitely required alot of "Verbal" type skills.

 

[smeagol]

Extreme examples are the exception, not the rule.
Most people who are preparing to take the MCAT are pretty smart, or at least, have the potential to be.

The rule? Oh I didn't know there was a rule!

That would create an interesting graph, that is, plotting the MCAT ceilings for students of varying IQs. For people who are not "pretty smart," such as those with trisomy 21 they have a ceiling. Then all of a sudden, past a certain magical IQ breakpoint, the ceiling is lifted 😀

But seriously: if you were to suppose that someone with downs syndrome was an exception, you need to consider a continuum of persons thereafter with varying grades of intelligence (though the definition of intelligence seems controversial). For instance, how about individuals with IQs of 80, 90, etc... When exactly, is this ceiling lifted if we are to suppose that it exists for those with IQs <80ish.

 

[Law2Doc]

There seems to be a thought in the premed community that each person can only improve their score so much, that you walk into your prep course or start your studying with a predetermined range that you can score, and that's it. Kind of the "I did my best and got a 29" sort of thing.

Is that true? If I REALLY work for a 35+, can I do it? If my practice exams aren't in that range, if I study more and test more, will my score improve? I'd like to think that's the way it is, but I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion.

So here it is:

Is there a MCAT score ceiling for each student? If so, what determines the ceiling?

Everyone has a maximum they can attain. It is pretty rare for most to actually attain it, because of some imperfections in study habits, test taking skills, focus. So the person who got a 29 might theoretically be able to get it to 35 with a better gameplan and more discipline, but perhaps would never ever approach 40. A person with a 35, by contrast, probably could have broken 40 if they tweaked a few things, focused a bit harder. And so on. Everyone has a personal best. A person spending unlimited time studying at their maximum ability is not assured a 45.

But the typical test taker absolutely can do better than they are doing, so saying "I did my best" is a copout. You didn't. You can always do some things better. Heck, even the dude who got a 45 probably feels he had some inefficiency in his study habits he could have improved.

 

[Vihsadas]

Everyone has a maximum they can attain. It is pretty rare for most to actually attain it, because of some imperfections in study habits, test taking skills, focus. So the person who got a 29 might theoretically be able to get it to 35 with a better gameplan and more discipline, but perhaps would never ever approach 40. A person with a 35, by contrast, probably could have broken 40 if they tweaked a few things, focused a bit harder. And so on. Everyone has a personal best. A person spending unlimited time studying at their maximum ability is not assured a 45.

But the typical test taker absolutely can do better than they are doing, so saying "I did my best" is a copout. You didn't. You can always do some things better. Heck, even the dude who got a 45 probably feels he had some inefficiency in his study habits he could have improved.

This is more along the lines of what I'm saying. I think that most people with the correct study habits, and optimizing how they take the test can get to 35.

The reason I think that people often can't get above that isn't because they have a personal ceiling in terms of how many questions they get right, it's because the way the MCAT is graded physically doesn't allow for more than only a few people to get a 40. There are enough people that don't prepare 600 hours, or work to defeat the exam or take it as seriously as others, that there will always be a large enough curve. But largely, I don't think the problem for most people is that they 'just don't have the intelligence'. To me, that is a defeatist copout...

 

[QofQuimica]

Is there a MCAT score ceiling for each student? If so, what determines the ceiling?

I got asked at one interview if I thought most people could score a 40, and I said no. The main reason is because of how the AAMC curves the test--if the average raw score went up, they would just raise the bar higher and still never let most people score in the 40s when they scaled it. But in addition, most people cannot finish the test in the allotted time and maintain accuracy the way they could if the test were untimed. If people could take as long as they wanted to take the MCAT and the AAMC did not curve the test against other test-takers, then yes, in that case I do think pretty much anyone could score at a 40 level if they really worked at it.

Even with the constraints of the test as administered, I would answer this question by saying, "it depends." Not everyone starts out equally good at taking tests, and not everyone is willing to work equally hard to get better at taking tests. A natural born athlete still has to train hard to win the Olympics. In contrast, a person who starts out without much obvious talent can work hard, make big improvements, and wind up doing very well. On the other hand, not everyone wants or needs to train to the level of Olympic caliber. When I ran my marathons, I was content to just finish; I wasn't looking to have a world-class time. A big part of the reason is that I simply wasn't willing to put in that kind of time and effort. Why should I? Just finishing the marathons was a big enough accomplishment as far as I was concerned. If I had been willing to work harder, I could have certainly improved my time quite a bit more. But I'm not a natural athlete, and I wouldn't stand a chance next to someone who was naturally gifted and also worked equally hard to attain their max.

Here's the thing: many people who are naturally talented coast on that talent and don't work as hard as more average people do. When most of my students (I work for Kaplan) take the diagnostic, they score in the high teens or low twenties. Every so often, I get someone who starts out in the low thirties. Those students often don't have to work very hard; they can ride on their natural test-taking ability. At the same time, some of my students who start out in the twenties also raise their scores up to the thirties by sheer determination and willpower. I've had students finish the entire Kaplan library (which, for those of you who haven't taken the Kaplan course, is absolutely ridiculous in volume).

I wasn't willing or able (timewise) to do that kind of thing, so my studying was more directed. I basically ignored the chemistry altogether and only did the physics and the physiology part of bio. I took five full lengths and no AAMC practice tests (which I don't advise people to do). But, I started out with a 40 on the diagnostic. I had no idea what to make of that. No one in the entire center had ever seen a diagnostic score like that before, including me. I wasn't sure if it was even valid because I don't think these practice tests are very predictive for people who are at either extreme end of the scale. Plus, I had seen the diagnostic before, so I didn't know if I had unconsciously remembered some of the questions or what. In hindsight, I probably could have still done very well without having studied at all, and maybe I would have chosen to devote my time to other (more useful?) things if I had been more confident in my diagnostic. Purposely putting in the time and effort to try to raise my score from a 40 to a 43 is beyond pointless.

Getting back to what I was saying about not needing to be Olympic caliber just to finish a marathon: I want to remind you all again that none of you needs to score a 40 on the MCAT to get into medical school. The vast majority of medical students do *not* have 40+ MCAT scores. Conversely, if you are a person with a 40+ MCAT score who comes across as being arrogant and entitled, medical schools can and will reject you. In addition, once you get here, no one will care about your MCAT score--well, unless you're like me and you teach premed MCAT courses. To be honest, though, I think that my having a PhD impresses the students more than my MCAT score does. I'm not even sure if most of them know how I scored on the MCAT. My last few classes have been exceedingly polite; since no one has asked me, I haven't told them. 🙂

 

[Vihsadas]

I got asked at one interview if I thought most people could score a 40, and I said no. The main reason is because of how the AAMC curves the test--if the average raw score went up, they would just raise the bar higher and still never let most people score in the 40s when they scaled it.

Exactly. The rest of your post in on point as well, of course.

 

[Begaster]

I wasn't willing or able (timewise) to do that kind of thing, so my studying was more directed. I basically ignored the chemistry altogether and only did the physics and the physiology part of bio. I took five full lengths and no AAMC practice tests (which I don't advise people to do). But, I started out with a 40 on the diagnostic. I had no idea what to make of that. No one in the entire center had ever seen a diagnostic score like that before, including me. I wasn't sure if it was even valid because I don't think these practice tests are very predictive for people who are at either extreme end of the scale. Plus, I had seen the diagnostic before, so I didn't know if I had unconsciously remembered some of the questions or what. In hindsight, I probably could have still done very well without having studied at all, and maybe I would have chosen to devote my time to other (more useful?) things if I had been more confident in my diagnostic. Purposely putting in the time and effort to try to raise my score from a 40 to a 43 is beyond pointless.

Wow, you started off with a 40? That's absolutely phenomenal. I couldn't remember a damn thing when it came to my MCAT material when I first started. Hell, even my verbal score was absolute garbage. I was hitting high 30s to low 40s by the end of my practice tests, but my diagnostic was a 21 (7/7/7, I think). To start off at 40, that's simply incredible.

Though, your logic about curving is off. They didn't ask if everyone could get a 40 at the same time (impossible due to curve), merely if anyone could do it given the proper amount of studying and preparation.

 

[halekulani]

I got asked at one interview if I thought most people could score a 40, and I said no. The main reason is because of how the AAMC curves the test--if the average raw score went up, they would just raise the bar higher and still never let most people score in the 40s when they scaled it. But in addition, most people cannot finish the test in the allotted time and maintain accuracy the way they could if the test were untimed. If people could take as long as they wanted to take the MCAT and the AAMC did not curve the test against other test-takers, then yes, in that case I do think pretty much anyone could score at a 40 level if they really worked at it.

excellent point
not everyone can be at the top 90%.

 

[durrrr]

Your expected value performance on the MCAT is due to a variety of factors, including intelligence, diligence in studying/preparing, ability to test-take well, ability to perform well under pressure, etc. etc.

Everyone has strengths/weaknesses in these different categories, so obviously everyone will have some sort of ceiling in these different areas no matter how hard you work. The idea is to do your best to improve at whatever area possible and work hard, and maximize your expected value.

 

[rhmtascp]

Wow, i never thought I would be writing in a MCAT forum (I stumbled on it by curiosity), but let me share my experience with you all kids. I took the MCAT 3 times (20/23/27), needless to say I didn't make it into a U.S. med school, only applied once anyway, and decided to go overseas. I was young back then and overconfident of my knowledge, so I studied pretty hard but not the fullest of extent of my potential (I was working almost full time too). I'm a year from graduating med school, and recently took the USMLE Step 1, well guess what, I scored 252. Perhaps you don't know what that means right now, but I'll put that into perspective. Average score for first-time takers from U.S./ Canadian schools is 218 with a SD of 23; that puts me in the top 5% compared to U.S./Canadian exam takers. One more thing, people scoring 35s or even 40s on MCATs flunk USMLEs too by the way. The moral of the story, anyone can achieve a 35+ on the MCAT, given hard, persistent preparation, together with smart studying, and plenty of practice. Even Verbal can be mastered given the right approach. So there, the MCAT is just a test to see whether you grasp basic concepts, which with smart preparation/lots of effort, anyone can Ace. It might take longer for some, shorter for others, but everyone has equal potential. Good luck on USMLEs.

 

[Vihsadas]

Wow, i never thought I would be writing in a MCAT forum (I stumbled on it by curiosity), but let me share my experience with you all kids. I took the MCAT 3 times (20/23/27), needless to say I didn't make it into a U.S. med school, only applied once anyway, and decided to go overseas. I was young back then and overconfident of my knowledge, so I studied pretty hard but not the fullest of extent of my potential (I was working almost full time too). I'm a year from graduating med school, and recently took the USMLE Step 1, well guess what, I scored 252. Perhaps you don't know what that means right now, but I'll put that into perspective. Average score for first-time takers from U.S./ Canadian schools is 218 with a SD of 23; that puts me in the top 5% compared to U.S./Canadian exam takers. One more thing, people scoring 35s or even 40s on MCATs flunk USMLEs too by the way. The moral of the story, anyone can achieve a 35+ on the MCAT, given hard, persistent preparation, together with smart studying, and plenty of practice. Even Verbal can be mastered given the right approach. So there, the MCAT is just a test to see whether you grasp basic concepts, which with smart preparation/lots of effort, anyone can Ace. It might take longer for some, shorter for others, but everyone has equal potential. Good luck on USMLEs.

Totally 100% agree with you. In the most concise way I think can think of, this is what I believe:
"It is the very attitude that you are limited, that is limiting you."

 

[QofQuimica]

Though, your logic about curving is off. They didn't ask if everyone could get a 40 at the same time (impossible due to curve), merely if anyone could do it given the proper amount of studying and preparation.

I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the question, because the test always *is* curved. I don't think the question I was asked has much meaning if that person was trying to ask about the possibility of improvement for *one* person in *one* testing cohort as if the rest of the test-takers were all going to stay in stasis--don't you think that many if not most test-takers are trying very hard to score as high as they can? The interviewer could, I suppose, ask this question about a person who took the test without adequately studying and then was planning to retake; i.e., could such a student score a 40 with enough prep? Again, I would say it depends, and a large part of what it depends upon is what other people do. 😛

Wow, i never thought I would be writing in a MCAT forum (I stumbled on it by curiosity), but let me share my experience with you all kids. I took the MCAT 3 times (20/23/27), needless to say I didn't make it into a U.S. med school, only applied once anyway, and decided to go overseas. I was young back then and overconfident of my knowledge, so I studied pretty hard but not the fullest of extent of my potential (I was working almost full time too). I'm a year from graduating med school, and recently took the USMLE Step 1, well guess what, I scored 252. Perhaps you don't know what that means right now, but I'll put that into perspective. Average score for first-time takers from U.S./ Canadian schools is 218 with a SD of 23; that puts me in the top 5% compared to U.S./Canadian exam takers. One more thing, people scoring 35s or even 40s on MCATs flunk USMLEs too by the way. The moral of the story, anyone can achieve a 35+ on the MCAT, given hard, persistent preparation, together with smart studying, and plenty of practice. Even Verbal can be mastered given the right approach. So there, the MCAT is just a test to see whether you grasp basic concepts, which with smart preparation/lots of effort, anyone can Ace. It might take longer for some, shorter for others, but everyone has equal potential. Good luck on USMLEs.

Congrats on your success; 252 is a very impressive score. But I don't think you can logically conclude that your having scored so well on the boards after getting an average range MCAT score means that anyone could score a 35+ on the MCAT if they just try hard enough! You can't even say that most other people who have average MCAT scores will be able to do what you did. MCAT scores have been shown to be the best predictors of board scores. Of course, there will always be exceptions that prove the rule, and it's terrific that you are one of them. You might want to post your story in the nontrad or post bac forum (not both please!); I'm sure a lot of people would find it very inspiring. 🙂

 

[Begaster]

No, no, I think our wires are getting crossed. Yes, the test is always curved. But I imagine when somebody asks you if you think everybody can achieve a 40, they don't mean at the same time (as that would be impossible - unless we're living in Lake Wobegon 😛). I feel the question is asking if you took any one person and put him through a serious regiment, worked him insanely hard, and peaked his performance, could he retake it and get at or around a 40 in a new sitting. They're basically asking if you think there's a ceiling, as this topic was. The comparison point would be what other people do, sure, but there's no reason to assume they'll be outside the normal range of performance (unless they're writing in September!).

I suppose I just don't agree with your assertion that a 40 is an impossibility for some people. Verbal may be the only section that can hold people back. When it comes to PS and BS, I feel anyone can score a 13+ with proper preparation (and a healthy dosing of luck in regards to the topics). And even with verbal, with enough practice, I feel anyone can probably bring that up to a consistent 12. I mean, people are treating this as an intelligence test, but I've seen no reliability or validity studies proving this to be the case (not to say they don't exist, I merely haven't stumbled across them - a caveat, I haven't actively searched either).

 

[decafplease]

No, no, I think our wires are getting crossed. Yes, the test is always curved. But I imagine when somebody asks you if you think everybody can achieve a 40, they don't mean at the same time (as that would be impossible - unless we're living in Lake Wobegon 😛). I feel the question is asking if you took any one person and put him through a serious regiment, worked him insanely hard, and peaked his performance, could he retake it and get at or around a 40 in a new sitting. They're basically asking if you think there's a ceiling, as this topic was. The comparison point would be what other people do, sure, but there's no reason to assume they'll be outside the normal range of performance (unless they're writing in September!).

Uhhh, you're freaking me out here. Is there something I don't know about the September MCAT?

 

[Begaster]

Well, take it for what it's worth, but the general consensus I got from test-takers in September was that they were a few points below what the AAMC practice tests had indicated, while most people in August or July seemed to be closer. Mine was by about 3-4 points also, though, besides bragging rights, I don't think it will make too big of a difference for me in the application process. I imagine it was simply a case of a lot of people spending their entire summers studying, making the curve brutal.

If I had to retake, I'd go for early-mid August. Right around the time the PR and Kaplan classes end, and most of the people doing their first write try their hand at the test. You have no idea how many people in my class, who would have benefited quite a bit from more study time, told me they were writing at the end of the course so they could still have a month of summer. Of course, this is pure conjecture and hearsay on my part and I have no statistics to back it all up, so salt heavily. 😛

 

[decafplease]

Well, take it for what it's worth, but the general consensus I got from test-takers in September was that they were a few points below what the AAMC practice tests had indicated, while most people in August or July seemed to be closer. Mine was by about 3-4 points also, though, besides bragging rights, I don't think it will make too big of a difference for me in the application process. I imagine it was simply a case of a lot of people spending their entire summers studying, making the curve brutal.

If I had to retake, I'd go for early-mid August. Right around the time the PR and Kaplan classes end, and most of the people doing their first write try their hand at the test. You have no idea how many people in my class, who would have benefited quite a bit from more study time, told me they were writing at the end of the course so they could still have a month of summer. Of course, this is pure conjecture and hearsay on my part and I have no statistics to back it all up, so salt heavily. 😛

Duly noted and salted.

Anyone else hear this? I think this calls for a new thread!

 

[rhmtascp]

Congrats on your success; 252 is a very impressive score. But I don't think you can logically conclude that your having scored so well on the boards after getting an average range MCAT score means that anyone could score a 35+ on the MCAT if they just try hard enough! You can't even say that most other people who have average MCAT scores will be able to do what you did. MCAT scores have been shown to be the best predictors of board scores. Of course, there will always be exceptions that prove the rule, and it's terrific that you are one of them. You might want to post your story in the nontrad or post bac forum (not both please!); I'm sure a lot of people would find it very inspiring. 🙂[/quote]

Well, I won't spend much more time writing here, but me having scored so well on the boards does not mean that anyone could score 35+ on the MCAT, they bear no relationship; you're right about that. I don't know how you concluded that I concluded that in my previous post. What does bear relationship is that had I had the right ingredients during my MCAT prep, I would have no doubt scored 35 or more, and so could anyone else. The statistics don't surprise me at all, actually they're so obvious that they could have just said so without doing any studies. Highly motivated people who prepare smart, along with good resources will do well on undergrad tests, will do well on the MCAT and will most likely do well on boards, no doubt about that. Most students don't have optimal studying habits and thus they get average scores, those who do, however, are the ones who score well. But anyone can crush any standardized test if all the pieces fit and enough time and effort are put into it. Louis Pasteur once said "Chance favors the prepared mind". Good luck to everyone here, and study smart.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I've often observed that a person maxes out at 12-16 points higher then teir first diagnostic

quote]
Hmmm, i should have got bw a 43-47 if I did it right then, GAH!!

 

[Vihsadas]

I've often observed that a person maxes out at 12-16 points higher then teir first diagnostic

Hmmm, i should have got bw a 43-47 if I did it right then, GAH!!

Well to be fair, the low end of that is right on the money with me. My official practice tests were between 39-43, and my diagnostic was 28 (actual = 40S)

 

[Bond8204]

I didn't bother to read the posts above, but here's my two cents.

When I talk about intelligence, I talk about an innate, inborn aptitude for scholastics. People can work hard to become scholastically apt, but some people, you must admit, are born with a greater aptitude than others.

While most premeds have generally high intelligence, some have it higher than others. The playing field of courses and grades rewards hard work more than anything else, really, which is why I think schools consider GPA carefully. To use an example, two of my friends were dating. The girl is on the duller side of the intelligence spectrum. The other was the most gifted premed of my friends. The duller one worked her ass off while the sharper one tended to party and then cram really hard for tests (note: when I say this, he really did study his ass off for a few days, so it's not like he blew off college, he just didn't maintain excellent study habits). The sharper one had a GPA about 0.1 higher than the duller by the end of college--the disparity in their intelligence was levelled by the duller's hard work.

Because the MCAT is a standardized test, base intelligence is going to factor big into how you score on it. Don't get me wrong--your academic background and how hard you prepare are others. But I would liken it to alcoholism--some people because of nature have a predisposition to alcoholism. Of course, if you never drink in your life they won't become alcoholics, but all things equal, they might develop it with the exact same behavior as someone else who wouldn't (similarly people are simply apt to do well on the MCAT/standardized tests. Of course if their academic background is terrible and they don't prepare at all, they won't do well. But preparing the same amount as someone else will lead them to do better than that same person who is less apt).

ALL THAT SAID, my premed advisor said people generally score +/- 1 or 2 from their ACT score. My MCAT score matched my ACT score to a T. Most of my friends also fell into this range (Obviously a 39 cannot be reached +2 from an ACT score, so all scores 38+ = 35, 36 ACT).

There are obviously exceptions, but I prepared for the MCAT very thoroughly two years ago, and on my best day ever I maybe could have gotten a 34 (11/12/11)....(actually ended up getting a 10/11/10, with which I'm satisfied). No matter how hard I prepared, I don't think I could have done any better than that 11/12/11.

I don't think the idea of that ceiling should keep you from testing it, though, considering their are exceptions. Maybe you could be one of them, so you should push yourself as hard as you can to prepare. I just think the observation by my advisor when he looked at the data is a generally accurate one.

 

[QofQuimica]

No, no, I think our wires are getting crossed. Yes, the test is always curved. But I imagine when somebody asks you if you think everybody can achieve a 40, they don't mean at the same time (as that would be impossible - unless we're living in Lake Wobegon 😛). I feel the question is asking if you took any one person and put him through a serious regiment, worked him insanely hard, and peaked his performance, could he retake it and get at or around a 40 in a new sitting. They're basically asking if you think there's a ceiling, as this topic was. The comparison point would be what other people do, sure, but there's no reason to assume they'll be outside the normal range of performance (unless they're writing in September!).

All I can tell you is that I didn't interpret the question the same way you did. Even by your interpretation (or if we took the curve away completely), I still don't think absolutely anyone could score a 40 due to the timed nature of the test.

I suppose I just don't agree with your assertion that a 40 is an impossibility for some people. Verbal may be the only section that can hold people back. When it comes to PS and BS, I feel anyone can score a 13+ with proper preparation (and a healthy dosing of luck in regards to the topics). And even with verbal, with enough practice, I feel anyone can probably bring that up to a consistent 12. I mean, people are treating this as an intelligence test, but I've seen no reliability or validity studies proving this to be the case (not to say they don't exist, I merely haven't stumbled across them - a caveat, I haven't actively searched either).

That's ok, we can agree to disagree. 🙂

I don't think the MCAT is really an intelligence test either, FWIW. I do think that it tests your ability to perform certain tasks, which are to comprehend passages, make connections to your current knowledge, and answer questions while under major time pressures. Some people are very bright and could do very well on the MCAT if they had as much time as they wanted, but they aren't terribly good at thinking on their feet. These people won't score as well on a timed test like the MCAT. The MCAT rewards people who are fast at solving their specific type of puzzles. You could call that "intelligence" I suppose, but it's a very specific kind of intelligence and I would never argue that it's equivalent to an overall aptitude test.

Also, I completely agree that practice can improve people's abilities to solve MCAT types of problems; if improvement were impossible even with training, all the test prep companies would go out of business! But it will never be a level playing field; some people are inherently more talented at taking these tests than others are. Mother Nature isn't fair in how she doles out people's natural abilities, and I will never run a sub-3 hour marathon even if I followed a world-class athlete's training schedule. On the bright side, you don't have to be a genius to make it through medical school. You do, however, have to be a hard worker and willing to put in the hours necessary to master the material. I think that medical school success favors the steady and sure rather than the brilliant and lazy.