People with high GPA but low MCAT - how'd it happen?

[Schemp]

I realize this can come across as judgmental because I have a pretty high MCAT, but that is really not my intent in asking this question. Honestly I think getting a high GPA is more impressive anyway.

My personal experience is that it is harder to consistently get As than get high scores on the MCAT, but clearly some people are the opposite. I am admittedly good at standardized testing, but generally struggle to focus on classes that don't interest me much, and scoring in the top 5-10% all the time is pretty ridiculous even if you like everything.

I'm curious what people did during school that made getting a 3.9+ possible (it seems nearly impossible to me), and what in turn was different about the MCAT. I found that studying for the MCAT has actually improved my test taking ability this year, but I don't see how someone could score highly in their courses consistently without a really great test taking strategy that could be adapted to the MCAT.

Feel free to air your grievances against the grading system or the MCAT, but please keep it civil with each other. I'm really interested in what causes this discrepancy so I'd like to hear what people think.

(I'm not asking about low GPA with high MCAT because that seems a little more obvious - lazy early in school, didn't try hard, etc.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

all I can think of is

1. Easy school/program with grade inflation (why the MCAT is there in the first place).

2. Is actually Ted Buckland and gets dyslexia under extreme stress

3. Simply not good at multiple choice. I've met some really smart people who know exactly what's going on in lecture/discussion and get perfect scores on the short answers sections but miss almost every "freebie" multiple choice question on the test, or who if you just change the format of the test and nothing else suddenly see their grade drop. I think these are also the people, who as one of my professors said, "wrestle with the choices to make what they think is the answer fit" as opposed to just picking what the test maker wants to see.

4. Lack of partial credit doesn't help either D:

Edit: Opposite of number 3, some people are just damn good multiple choice takers. They can weed out the right answer even if they have no idea what they're talking about

 

[Legacy87]

Sure, I'll take a crack at it. In terms of getting a high gpa, I believe all it takes is hard work and studying what the prof like to emphasize on his tests. University professors, at least at my school, just test our knowledge base without really tapping our problem-solving skills. For example, if we're learning about the heart, he/she might asks "What is the name of the valve between the right ventricle and pumonary artery?"

On the other hand, the MCAT go beyond and challenge us to integrate materials, "If the valve fails to open, how will that affect the ATP levels in the myocardium." That's why I believe that engineers have a step up over bio majors in terms of the mcat as they constantly tap into their problem-solving skills.

 

[JJMrK]

all I can think of is

1. Easy school/program with grade inflation (why the MCAT is there in the first place).

2. Is actually Ted Buckland and gets dyslexia under extreme stress

3. Simply not good at multiple choice. I've met some really smart people who know exactly what's going on in lecture/discussion and get perfect scores on the short answers sections but miss almost every "freebie" multiple choice question on the test, or who if you just change the format of the test and nothing else suddenly see their grade drop. I think these are also the people, who as one of my professors said, "wrestle with the choices to make what they think is the answer fit" as opposed to just picking what the test maker wants to see.

4. Lack of partial credit doesn't help either D:

Edit: Opposite of number 3, some people are just damn good multiple choice takers. They can weed out the right answer even if they have no idea what they're talking about

Add didn't prepare well enough to your list.

 

[Van Chowder]

MC rocks. the answer is always right in front of you!

 

[J ROD]

Some people get really nervous before they take a standardized test that is for "all the marbles".....and cant think as well as they normally do.

I know I suffer from this but have gotten better. I just care less.

I scored 6 points less than my practice average on the MCAT on the real thing and took it twice.

We all have our weakness and how you handle them defines you and makes you better.

 

[vin5cent0]

You don't have to be intelligent to have a high GPA. I think intelligence more factors in on the MCAT. One of my friends is a straight-A student in college (junior so far), and I wouldn't say she's exceptionally smart, she just spends all of her free time studying and whatnot. I, on the other hand, wait until the morning of a test (like today) to wake up at 5 am and cram for it. Hence my GPA is a ~3.5 🙂thumbdown), yet I'm constantly having to explain things to the aforementioned friend.

 

[illegallysmooth]

I think the main difference, aside from someone just slacking off and not studying enough, is the problem solving aspect of the MCAT. It requires you to use information you know and apply it to devices and situations you know nothing about. This is why I think a low GPA would imply issues with diligence and dedication, while a low MCAT would imply issues with those problem solving skills.

 

[Genesea]

i agree with above posters that problem solving is one part of it.

another part of it, i think, is that the mcat tests subjects that the student may not have had to deal with beyond a couple classes, and so may not have completely mastered. you can get through a class on memorization but if you don't REALLY understand it, then you will struggle on the mcat.

many of us are biology majors and can understand most biology really well, but may have trouble with some mcat subjects (physics/chemistry for me).

you can cram for tests in your classes, you can't cram for the mcat. (cram meaning trying to learn the material as opposed to reviewing it.)

 

[tmjbama5]

i'm the opposite of the OP...pretty high GPA but fairly low MCAT.

i think there are several factors that have already been mentioned...

a) pressure bc it is THE test to get you into med school
b) different format different ways of asking for answers (have to be able to recognize what the MCAT is really asking you, which was difficult for me even though i got better at it)...also you have to know whether the answer is in the passage or if it has nothing to do with the passage
c) preparing for several wks can be taxing and depressing if you aren't improving on practice tests (in other words, i found it hard to get motivated to study for the MCAT after awhile bc my studying wasn't generating much better scores, if at all - and i was always used to having my studying pay off significantly)
d) some tests are more difficult than others
e) the way the MCAT is scored...you can potentially get more questions right than another person and they could get a 32 and you end up with a 29...so getting the "right" questions right is better than getting more total questions right in many cases (totally different than most normal tests)

however, the one of the biggest obstacles with me on this test (that i didn't see mentioned) was the TIME...i am a fairly slow, methodical, stubborn test-taker, which doesn't bode well for any MCAT participant. i am used to being able to take my time for the most part on regular tests and on the MCAT you are forced to answer within a couple minutes or you fall behind. if i had had just 10 more minutes on every section, i would've have scored significantly better i honestly think (i realize a lot of people can probably say the same thing, but im just saying...). time pressure causes me to lose focus at the task at hand and really influences my ability (even though i got better at this).

 

[7starmantis]

Bleh, I dont think MCAT measures intelligence anymore than gpa does. Maybe problem solving a bit more, but its just a test.

I have a high gpa and what would be considered a low MCAT. I did not take the MCAT again, I was happy with my 29. I think one thing that people have overlooked is the effect one test has on your gap vs the effect "one test" has on your MCAT score. My biochem course grade was resting on only one grade, a timed final; that would be more indicative of an MCAT score (I still did "better" on the biochem than MCAT I would say). But sometimes you do poorly on a test, even those with high gpa's. If that happens on your MCAT, you get a low MCAT, if it happens in a class, basically nothing happens to your gpa.

Man I need to stop typing like I speak. Can anyone understand what I just wrote besides me? 😱

 

[DocMcCoy]

Loud and clear Mantis. I seem to have the same problem sometimes. I think maintaining a high GPA can be much harder depending on your circumstances. If you are working 20-30hrs a week and taking a full class load while getting all the typical pre-med stuff done this would make maintaining a high GPA very hard.

The MCAT is a one time deal. The majority of premeds 'learn' the test which vastly improves overall scores. Don't get me wrong it is extremely important in this process, but there are many ways to measure intelligence.

MCAT and GPA may get you an interview, but if you have no social intelligence you probably won't find yourself attending medical school any time soon.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

grade inflation

 

[thesauce]

I think it's an interesting question. I can tell you my situation.

I had a 4.0 in Chemical Engineering and a 30 MCAT (8-8-14PS), which although not low, is definitely lower than I "should have." There were many reasons for this:

1. I was in the midst of one of the hardest semesters of undergrad (ChE Fluids&Heat Transfer, PChem2, ChE Separations, ChE Kinetics, ChE Transport, Intermediate Differential Equations, and a couple of non-science courses) when I was supposed to be studying for my MCAT. At that point, I wasn't 100% sure that I wanted to go to medical school, so it was more important to me that I maintain my GPA than worry too much about the MCAT.

2. I didn't really know what a good score was. Now I know that this sounds a little funny, but I didn't have an MSAR, I didn't have any friends who had taken the thing (since I wasn't premed), and I didn't even know about SDN. Someone told me that all I needed was a 30, so that's what I shot for. If I was a little more educated about the process, it would have made a big difference.

3. I hadn't taken a single biology course since middle school at the time I took the exam. I didn't have bio in high school and didn't take the bio prereqs for medical school until after I was accepted. This definitely showed in my bio score.

Although many of these things were a mistake in retrospect, I still wouldn't change them. I got into most of the schools on my list, including a top tier, and had a rewarding medical school experience. So in the big game of me vs. the MCAT, I won.

 

[MilkmanAl]

In addition to the factors that have been mentioned, a big part of it seems to be that many people just memorize their way through college. Mass memorization is certainly the most efficient way to get through the pre-reqs and the first two years of med school. As others have said, the MCAT tests your ability to apply what you've learned, and many of the people who've powered their way to a 4.0 by cramming crap into their heads can't put everything together. I see that problem constantly in med school. People in my class can rock the hell out of a class test but don't understand how what they just "learned" connects with anything else.

 

[Ilovewater]

The problem is I didn't study or prepare for the MCAT. I glanced over some of the content and took a practice exam 4 or 5 days before the MCAT.... That was totally my fault, but I was also sick while taking the exam. Worst day ever.

 

[guyski79]

Two things.

1) The MCAT is standardized. GPAs are not. (i.e. Not all 4.0s are created equal, but every 40 MCAT is.)

2) Some people are better test takers than others.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Two things.

1) The MCAT is standardized. GPAs are not. (i.e. Not all 4.0s are created equal, but every 40 MCAT is.)

2) Some people are better test takers than others.

Arguably you could say that because the mcat is different from person to person and test day to test day. That's a 40 for me and a 40 for you is not the same. I know a guy for example who got a 2100 on his first sat ( everyone got a high score that day lowest I knew was a 1710) and a 1600 the next time ( everyone I knew who took it that day said it was significantly harder then usual.)

The reality is that I think that GPA and MCAT's aren't good at showing us how intelligent or capable a person is to do in medical school. I think that a MCAT however does show how a person will be able to get a good USMLE.
But neh thats life? Nothings really perfect.

 

[vin5cent0]

Bleh, I dont think MCAT measures intelligence anymore than gpa does. Maybe problem solving a bit more, but its just a test.

I think you just contradicted yourself. IMO, intelligence is the ability to problem-solve through something previously unknown to you, or reason through it. There's a HUGE difference between knowledge and intelligence. Much of your GPA is regurgitation of knowledge. Very, very seldom do I see on a test a problem that requires critical thinking / problem-solving on something we didn't specifically go over in class.

Also, people raise a good point about not all GPAs being even. I've been handed a few A's by teachers that I didn't deserve, and I've been given poor grades that I also didn't deserve. Sometimes it comes down to being able to schmooze your teacher, or picking the right one.

 

[softmed]

For me, my mediocre MCAT (very low 30s) was because of lack of practice. I took an MCAT course, but I didn't have any time to study before the test and I did reasonably well on few practices I took (like between a 35 and 38) but I didn't have time to solidify those scores.

I think overall my score was good for the situation, but I believe I could easily hit near a 40 if I had more time to study, practice, and retake the test.

But then again, I'm also probably full of crap.

 

[thesauce]

Arguably you could say that because the mcat is different from person to person and test day to test day. That's a 40 for me and a 40 for you is not the same. I know a guy for example who got a 2100 on his first sat ( everyone got a high score that day lowest I knew was a 1710) and a 1600 the next time ( everyone I knew who took it that day said it was significantly harder then usual.)

The reality is that I think that GPA and MCAT's aren't good at showing us how intelligent or capable a person is to do in medical school. I think that a MCAT however does show how a person will be able to get a good USMLE.
But neh thats life? Nothings really perfect.

I read a report on this a while back and although it's not a bad indicator, it's not as great as you might think. At the far lower end (<24), Step 1 scores are significantly lower. At the very high end (>38), Step 1 scores are significantly higher. In between: it's all over the place.

 

[guyski79]

Arguably you could say that because the mcat is different from person to person and test day to test day. That's a 40 for me and a 40 for you is not the same. I know a guy for example who got a 2100 on his first sat ( everyone got a high score that day lowest I knew was a 1710) and a 1600 the next time ( everyone I knew who took it that day said it was significantly harder then usual.)

The reality is that I think that GPA and MCAT's aren't good at showing us how intelligent or capable a person is to do in medical school. I think that a MCAT however does show how a person will be able to get a good USMLE.
But neh thats life? Nothings really perfect.

No, I think that 40 for me and 40 for you on the MCAT are the same. We may have had different test days, but we took the same exam, more or less.

On the contrary, GPAs vary so wildly across different schools and different programs. A 4.0 music major is not the same as a 4.0 biochem major, just like a 4.0 from school A is not the same as a 4.0 from school B.

That makes it impossible to compare GPAs, and it's been shown to be a terrible predictor of Step I scores.

My point was that GPA shows how well you did in your coursework relative to your classmates. That's all. It's not a very accurate predictor of MCAT score, so it shouldn't be all that surprising for people to have high GPA/low MCAT and vice versa.

 

[bamtuba]

There are a lot of good responses here, but I wanted to add one more point of view from my experience in education.

There are a lot of different tests out there, some really good and some really bad, at determining what it is the test-makers want to know.

Most people at the university level teach as they were taught, not really thinking about HOW they are testing students and merely testing rote learning (ie. "regurgitate these facts") or attempting to test a student's ability to apply reason to the material (ie. "given x and y, how might z be affected"). The latter tends to be VERY difficult to pull off well and it can take MANY years of tweaking an exam to get this part right.

The MCAT is essentially created from a question bank of questions produced by a large sampling of professors, some good and some not quite.

Though I will be admittedly biased here, GPA should be weighted more heavily than a LOW MCAT score simply because it shows a trend of performance over many types of professors over a greater period of time. HOWEVER, a HIGH MCAT score should be given more weight than either, because of the probability of a student arbitrarily scoring a 35+ being so freakin' unlikely.

My main point by saying the above is this: it is easy to get a false negative (ie. low score), but nearly impossible to get a false positive (ie. high score) on a WELL-WRITTEN standardized exam.

People have bad days, screw up, run out of time, have lack of preparation, etc. While some of these reasons can be attributed to variables pertaining to the student, some are out of the student's control, and basing an admissions decision on ONE FALSE NEGATIVE is pretty silly, IMO. A PATTERN (2-3+) of negatives though is a little more iron-clad.

I hate standardized testing for this reason. Most people do little or no research with education or learning but rather make assumptions that a certain score MUST be indicative of a student's abilities. Hence you end up with 4.0 students who take the MCAT twice, once getting a 28 and the second time getting a 34 and being looked down upon as "inferior" to someone who has a 3.8 and gets that 33 the first time (let's just say from the same program and school just to appease SDN).

This is the way it is, unfair or not, but the reasons are many and can mean little more than "the student had a bad day" or COULD mean what many like for it to mean: that the MCAT is a great test designed to seperate the good from the bad and be "the great equalizer..."

Just one more hoop so just make sure you are as ready as you can be the first time to cut down on the chances that you are "that guy/gal" with the 4.0, 27, 140+ IQ.

Oh, and by the way, the MCAT is not designed to test IQ nor is it successful as indicating an applicant's "intelligence." But IQ tests are another poorly designed (and socially/culturally biased) method of proving one type of learning superior to another. Though I would LOVE for the current methods to be of real use (as they would put me far higher than my MCAT of a mere-mortal 31 would indicate), alas, they are not.

 

[bamtuba]

No, I think that 40 for me and 40 for you on the MCAT are the same. We may have had different test days, but we took the same exam, more or less.

On the contrary, GPAs vary so wildly across different schools and different programs. A 4.0 music major is not the same as a 4.0 biochem major, just like a 4.0 from school A is not the same as a 4.0 from school B.
That makes it impossible to compare GPAs, and it's been shown to be a terrible predictor of Step I scores.

My point was that GPA shows how well you did in your coursework relative to your classmates. That's all. It's not a very accurate predictor of MCAT score, so it shouldn't be all that surprising for people to have high GPA/low MCAT and vice versa.

How true. That music major might just be Einstein who actually COULD play violin...

The most intelligent people I have met have been music majors. I did go to a conservatory though and that could be construed as being an unfair comparison.

I would dare say a higher percentage of accomplished scientists/physicians are former musicians than the other way around.

 

[thesauce]

No, I think that 40 for me and 40 for you on the MCAT are the same. We may have had different test days, but we took the same exam, more or less.

I think the bolded part is his point. Let's say someone's PS section is particularly circuits-heavy and they happen to have a minor in EE and worked internships in circuit-manufacturing for 2 summers. They might do better on that portion than the next guy. Is their 40 the same as the next guy? No. They would have scored lower with a less circuits-heavy exam. You see the same discrepancies during step 1. Someone who has a PhD in neuroscience might have a neuro-heavy exam.

Unfortunately, these tests aren't perfect, but they're not bad.

 

[JJMrK]

e) the way the MCAT is scored...you can potentially get more questions right than another person and they could get a 32 and you end up with a 29...so getting the "right" questions right is better than getting more total questions right in many cases (totally different than most normal tests)

What exactly are you trying to say here?

 

[thesauce]

What exactly are you trying to say here?

I'm not sure. Are some questions worth more than others on the MCAT?

 

[JJMrK]

Nope.

 

[DocHomer]

For me, my mediocre MCAT (very low 30s) was because of lack of practice. I took an MCAT course, but I didn't have any time to study before the test and I did reasonably well on few practices I took (like between a 35 and 38) but I didn't have time to solidify those scores.

I think overall my score was good for the situation, but I believe I could easily hit near a 40 if I had more time to study, practice, and retake the test.

But then again, I'm also probably full of crap.

You gotta love SDN where scoring in the low 30s on the MCAT is "mediocre".

 

[guyski79]

How true. That music major might just be Einstein who actually COULD play violin...

The most intelligent people I have met have been music majors. I did go to a conservatory though and that could be construed as being an unfair comparison.

I would dare say a higher percentage of accomplished scientists/physicians are former musicians than the other way around.

I think you misunderstood me, and to be fair, I wasn't very clear.

I didn't mean to imply that music majors are any less intelligent or less apt for medical school. I agree with you: many music people I've met have been brilliant.

I just picked music because the music department at my school gives the most As of any department, and music majors have one of the highest average GPAs at my school.

My point was just that different courses in different departments at the same school have very different grading policies, so it's difficult to compare the GPAs between applicants from different majors, let alone different schools.

 

[guyski79]

I'm not sure. Are some questions worth more than others on the MCAT?

No, your MCAT score isn't determined by the raw number of questions you got right or wrong.

Your percentile determines your score, not the other way around. This is what makes is a more accurate metric to compare applicants. Your score says how well you did in comparison to the rest of the test-taking pool.

 

[bamtuba]

I think you misunderstood me, and to be fair, I wasn't very clear.

I didn't mean to imply that music majors are any less intelligent or less apt for medical school. I agree with you: many music people I've met have been brilliant.

I just picked music because the music department at my school gives the most As of any department, and music majors have one of the highest average GPAs at my school.

My point was just that different courses in different departments at the same school have very different grading policies, so it's difficult to compare the GPAs between applicants from different majors, let alone different schools.

I can agree with this. Thanks for the clarification.

👍

 

[guyski79]

I think the bolded part is his point. Let's say someone's PS section is particularly circuits-heavy and they happen to have a minor in EE and worked internships in circuit-manufacturing for 2 summers. They might do better on that portion than the next guy. Is their 40 the same as the next guy? No. They would have scored lower with a less circuits-heavy exam. You see the same discrepancies during step 1. Someone who has a PhD in neuroscience might have a neuro-heavy exam.

Unfortunately, these tests aren't perfect, but they're not bad.

No, I agree with you, and I see your point.

Standardized tests are in no way perfect.

But I would argue that there are more uncontrolled factors that go into a GPA than an MCAT or Step 1 score.

However, I do realize that that is only my opinion and is entirely subjective.

 

[ShinyDome19]

I'm not sure. Are some questions worth more than others on the MCAT?

I believe he's talking about the questions that are kinda "Beta-Test" questions. The AAMC website has a small blurb about these questions somewhere in the MCAT description thingy. They are included in the exam, but thrown out in the end. You could potentially get these questions right, while someone else doesnt, answer the same as the other person on all other questions and still get the same score.

 

[paki20]

i know a lot of idiots who scored well on the MCAT...and i know a lot of idiots who have high GPAs...im in the latter

MCAT is not as standardized as you may think it is...it CAN vary especially since the content is so sparse the actual test varies greatly from different test dates..for example my MCAT was roughly 60% orgo and 40% molecular biology/genetics...no joke...it was almost ALL orgo..

while I got an A in orgo and know I can understand the material when I study for it extensively, I was not prepared to see that much organic chem on the MCAT

i ended up scoring my lowest on the biology section EVER when that has ALWAYS been my highest (my practice exams ranged from 12-15 but got a 10 on the actual test)..unfortunately I took a HUGE risk thinking I was going to score in high 30's due to my practice scores and waited until later summer to take the exam while applying that same summer


physical section was 1 point below the average of practice exams..
verbal was on par with my practice exam

but as I have learned the hard way...MCAT >>>>>>>>> GPA for many of the top-10/top-20 schools...and its not because they think its a good indicator its because US News weighs average MCAT higher than average GPA

and for MCAT its not only about knowing content its also about familiarity of the test and STRATEGY...

one 6 hour exam will NOT predict how good of a doctor you will be..pre-med curriculum and MCAT only exist to weed out the number of pre-med students applying..

and USLME is a totally different beast than the MCAT..my friend who got F's in high school science classes went overseas to do his medical school straight after high school knowing he wouldnt be able to pass the rigors of pre-med and the MCAT just got his USMLE score back and he scored a 235 on Step I without ever taking classes in general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, calculus or the MCAT (or any other useless pre-med requirement)...he teases me because ive been waitlisted almost everywhere ive applied when ive worked my butt off during high school and undergrad while he fooled around

 

[bamtuba]

I believe he's talking about the questions that are kinda "Beta-Test" questions. The AAMC website has a small blurb about these questions somewhere in the MCAT description thingy. They are included in the exam, but thrown out in the end. You could potentially get these questions right, while someone else doesnt, answer the same as the other person on all other questions and still get the same score.

Didn't think about this, but that is one plausible difference for some people.

Mine had a set of questions about rocks and crystallization that drove me NUTS!

Key here = move on and spend as little time as possible on each section. 👍

 

[thesauce]

No, I agree with you, and I see your point.

Standardized tests are in no way perfect.

But I would argue that there are more uncontrolled factors that go into a GPA than an MCAT or Step 1 score.

However, I do realize that that is only my opinion and is entirely subjective.

And we would agree

 

[thesauce]

No, your MCAT score isn't determined by the raw number of questions you got right or wrong.

Your percentile determines your score, not the other way around. This is what makes is a more accurate metric to compare applicants. Your score says how well you did in comparison to the rest of the test-taking pool.

Right, but your percentile is determined by how many of the questions (i.e. raw score) you got right compared to your peers who took the same form as you. The only way someone could get fewer right, but still get a higher score is if some questions are worth more than others or some aren't worth anything (beta-testing questions).

 

[tmjbama5]

I'm not sure. Are some questions worth more than others on the MCAT?

sorry, i had heard that, for example, if 50% of ppl nationally get question A right and only 30% get question B right, it is more beneficial to your score to get question B right...bc it is viewed as a more difficult question, thus weighed more.

this is what i thought bc you are graded based on how well you did compared to other test-takers. i knew of the "raw score" being converted to a "scaled score" and all of that, but got some additional poor info apparently.

 

[jackson1]

i have a high gpa (3.9+) and got a low mcat my first time around (mid 20's). my school doesn't really have grade inflation so i don't think that's the issue. i think my main problem was simply lack of preparation. i'm an awesome crammer and regularly studied the night before tests and got A's. i had no idea what the mcat was going to be like and tried cramming, which obviously didn't work. i did horribly on the ps section because there was no way i could memorize all the formulas, etc within a couple days before. luckily, i was able to fix that when studying the second time and actually spread it out and retained the info. probably a valuable lesson for med school, since cramming and forgetting the info immediately after isn't really an option!

 

[thesauce]

..my friend who got F's in high school science classes went overseas to do his medical school straight after high school knowing he wouldnt be able to pass the rigors of pre-med and the MCAT just got his USMLE score back and he scored a 235 on Step I (>98th percentile) without ever taking organic chemistry or physics or the MCAT

No, it's not. Although not a bad score, a 235 is not even 80th percentile.

 

[thesauce]

sorry, i had heard that, for example, if 50% of ppl nationally get question A right and only 30% get question B right, it is more beneficial to your score to get question B right...bc it is viewed as a more difficult question, thus weighed more.

this is what i thought bc you are graded based on how well you did compared to other test-takers. i knew of the "raw score" being converted to a "scaled score" and all of that, but got some additional poor info apparently.

That's how the GRE is, I believe.

 

[paki20]

I believe he's talking about the questions that are kinda "Beta-Test" questions. The AAMC website has a small blurb about these questions somewhere in the MCAT description thingy. They are included in the exam, but thrown out in the end. You could potentially get these questions right, while someone else doesnt, answer the same as the other person on all other questions and still get the same score.

yeah and he's referring to the fact that each section has a different curve...verbal section has the lowest room for error..i was only getting 10 questions wrong in the entire section (~1 per passage) and was scoring a 9 or 10 on verbal...but you can get 15 wrong in bio and still score a 10 or 11

so lets say person A gets 10 questions wrong in verbal gets a score of 10 while person B gets 8 questions wrong and gets a score of 12 on verbal

person A gets 9 questions wrong in biology and gets a 12 on biology while person B gets 11 questions wrong but also gets a 12 on biology because of the curve

person A gets 9 questions wrong in PS and gets a 13 on PS while person B gets 11 questions wrong but also gets a 13 on PS because of the curve

person A: has 28 questions wrong but a MCAT score of 35
person B: has 30 questions wrong but a MCAT score of 37

 

[RunningDiva]

sorry, i had heard that, for example, if 50% of ppl nationally get question A right and only 30% get question B right, it is more beneficial to your score to get question B right...bc it is viewed as a more difficult question, thus weighed more.

this is what i thought bc you are graded based on how well you did compared to other test-takers. i knew of the "raw score" being converted to a "scaled score" and all of that, but got some additional poor info apparently.

all questions are weighted equally. your raw score is converted into a scaled score. this scaled score is based on a range. for example, a score of 10 on a physical science section could mean that raw scores within the range of 30-35 questions answered correctly. one test taker could get more correct in this section, say get 35 correct, while another may get 30 correct, but they both end up with the same scaled score.

and is it true that different forms of the test are given within one year. but the scaled scores "standardize" the different tests by taking into account the difficulty of the test. this is why raw scores have different ranges for different tests.


http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/mcatessentials.pdf

EDIT: So for above post with person A and B:

Person A got less wrong but had a lower score: test difficulty was lower compared to test for B.
Person B got more wrong but had a higher score: test was more difficult compared to test for A.

 

[JJMrK]

No, your MCAT score isn't determined by the raw number of questions you got right or wrong.

Your percentile determines your score, not the other way around. This is what makes is a more accurate metric to compare applicants. Your score says how well you did in comparison to the rest of the test-taking pool.

This is actually misinformation. From the AAMC website:

The raw score you receive on each section is converted to a score on this 15-point scale. For example, if your raw score on one of the sections is between 40 and 43, your converted score might be 11. Scores ranging from 44 to 46 might have a converted score of 12, and so forth.

...

The percentile provided on your score report simply indicates what percentage of examinees from the previous testing year scored the same as you did on the MCAT exam.

How you score on the MCAT exam, therefore, is not reflective of the particular exam you took&#8212;including the time of day, the test date, or the time of year&#8212;since any difference in difficulty level is accounted for when calculating your scale scores (see above for information about scaling).

 

[paki20]

This is actually misinformation. From the AAMC website:

and yes even the percentiles on the MCAT are displayed as a range...and they have a HUGE range...like a 10 on one section ranged from 45th percentile to 75th percentile..thats a huge freaking range...talk about it being standardized LOLLLLL 👎

 

[guyski79]

This is actually misinformation. From the AAMC website:

Righto. I should have said that a raw question score doesn't translate into the same scaled score every time.

I was wrong on percentiles.

 

[JasonE]

i actually think the MCAT does measure intelligence. and my definition of intelligence is being able to solve a problem by analyzing info and having sound reasoning.

while yes, studying is required for the mcat, you really max out after 1-2 months of studying cuz the test isnt about how much bio/physics/chem you know.

for example, i know orgo like the back of my hand. not just to get an A in a course, but way beyond that. the mcat orgo questions usually dont require you to have remembered a particular reaction or mechanism. just having the basics down really solid allowed me to answer pretty much every mcat orgo question i ever saw in seconds. too bad my mcat didnt have much orgo on it.


and i know some ppl i would consider below average on smarts with 4.0 gpas. as an arts and science student, if you try really hard, you will NOT do poorly. i think engineering is a different story.

 

[trep14]

i have a high gpa (3.9+) and got a low mcat my first time around (mid 20's). my school doesn't really have grade inflation so i don't think that's the issue. i think my main problem was simply lack of preparation. i'm an awesome crammer and regularly studied the night before tests and got A's. i had no idea what the mcat was going to be like and tried cramming, which obviously didn't work. i did horribly on the ps section because there was no way i could memorize all the formulas, etc within a couple days before. luckily, i was able to fix that when studying the second time and actually spread it out and retained the info. probably a valuable lesson for med school, since cramming and forgetting the info immediately after isn't really an option!

Same here. I'm a crammer too and though I studied sparingly for a month or so (an hour here, an hour there), I didn't really start cracking down until the week of the exam and I didn't take any practice tests. In fact, I botched my test prep so badly that I stayed up until like 11 PM the night before the test cramming on the biological sciences section. Never even got around to practicing any VR. When the real MCAT rolled around, I ended up running out of time on the Physical Science section so badly that I didn't even have a chance to even put an answer down for every question. I ended up getting a 28 (though I somehow got a 10 in PS despite not answering a single question on an entire passage). I didn't retake and just chose to go ahead and apply early and try to beat the rush. It ended up working out, but if I took it again I'd definitely prepare much more efficiently and like to think that I could crack 30 had I done so.

 

[paki20]

EDIT: So for above post with person A and B:

Person A got less wrong but had a lower score: test difficulty was lower compared to test for B.
Person B got more wrong but had a higher score: test was more difficult compared to test for A.

nah took the same test its just verbal is scaled much more differently than the rest of the sections...PS and BS have a really good curve so people who fall within a set range, lets say 7-10 questions wrong, can technically achieve the same score on ONE section of the same test..

am not even talking about different tests which too will have different scales when compared to other test dates