Possible to get into MD with a 7 on verbal?

[Lawpy]

This is a good point except that the other two (now three) sections also require deciphering a set of unknown passages accurately within a short period, which assesses the ability to read and analyze.

Strictly analyzing passages without any background knowledge is what makes verbal unique, even though it requires using a different reasoning approach from the sciences. Of course, the biology section now would surely have a much stronger correlation with medical school performance thanks to its recent emphasis on analyzing research papers and experimental setups. But the sciences and seemingly the P/S section also require content knowledge to do well, something which verbal lacks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jb94mg]

Ummm, so you pretty much just validated my argument that there's more to the admissions process than just being completely stat-based, and that it's possible to get into MD with a 7 then, no

Edit: also funny how you snarkily threw in the "you usually forget to mention you're ESL" when at least a solid 15 posts in my post history indicate that I am ESL. Nice one buddy.

I can tell by the bitterness of your reply that my post struck a nerve. No, that's not what the study validated it all - rather, it validates that ESL students' VR scores are looked at more charitably. Might want to work more on those reading skills some more, buddy, and your post history has nothing to do with the fact that you always just say that you're an ORM when you post about having received interviews with your VR score, while conveniently leaving out the important info, which is that you're an ESL student.

 

[Goro]

The papers I've seen show no correlation to med school performance or Step I for subscores, only composite. Obvious, there is a lot of conflicting data, and that means both of them are correct.

In our experience, a low VR is only troublesome when the candidate's spoken or listening skills are deficient. But these are less common than fluent ESLs who excelled in college, and aced the Bio and PS sections. The VR is usbsection is simply perverse in this regard.

This is one of those rare occasions I'll disagree with my learned colleague L2D!

 

[MSclerosis]

I think it puts you at a huge disadvantage compared to, let's say, if you were in the 80th percentile for verbal.

The medical school application process is hard enough as it is. You really don't want to be screened out for something as trivial as one section of the MCAT exam. I would recommend rewriting for such a person.

Sometimes, you can hit several awful passages in quick succession. We all have bad days.

I have a friend who went from a 7 to a 13 on his 2nd rewrite. As others have mentioned, we all have this friend. The guy liked to read history, and on his rewrite, he said that most of his passages were historical. He found his groove and destroyed it. Same guy also applied to like 10+ schools and only got 1 interview. It was from a top school and he got in. Won the lottery.

However, he is not the norm. He is the the exception.

 

[jb94mg]

"Always" lmao oh you mean on about a grand total of 3 different occasions on threads that were specifically related to getting IIs given a lower MCAT score? I'm sure I have a lot to gain by trying to encourage and motivate my peers to be confident and see themselves as more than a number. At least I have something genuine to contribute rather than going around being a general dirtbag and convincing people their dreams are out of reach. Good day to you buddy!

You're the one being a dirtbag here, not me. You've contributed nothing other than misleading information. Writing your VR score off as frivolous and telling those who got similar scores that it doesn't matter what their scores are, when the reality is that they're not comparable to you as an applicant, is just wrong. Wanting people to have a realistic idea of their chances is reasonable and friendly, especially since money is on the line with secondaries, apps, etc. Pretty clear why you're on probationary status as it is.

I called you out specifically because you were posting misleading things - maybe try taking some responsibility for that instead of just flinging attacks and acting like you're doing others a favor. But I'm not responding to you any further, "buddy."

 

[sharkbyte]

I'm not sure I'd trust that TPR excerpt unless schools are specifically stating on their websites (such as the FAQ) that they give verbal a closer/heavier look than other sections. The only school I've come across that says this on its website is Miami.

 

[efle]

There are papers stating the exact opposite of what you just said. I referenced one above. There are more. This is an old rehashed discussion and if you go on pubmed youll find many papers which would reverse your equation.

@Lawper

from a meta-analysis of many studies. Looks like BS/PS and V were a little lower than I thought (.50s and .30s respectively), composite was in the .60's though

http://www.internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf

 

[Lawpy]

@Lawper

from a meta-analysis of many studies. Looks like BS/PS and V were a little lower than I thought (.50s and .30s respectively), composite was in the .60's though

http://www.internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf

Interesting. I found something similar on another SDN thread.

I'd say MMI performance falls in the "holistic" category.

So while verbal has the weakest correlation to preclinical years and Steps 1 and 2, it has the strongest correlation clinical years and Step 3. @Law2Doc is this what you mean by the importance of verbal in shaping up communication skills? I mean the MMIs and interviews do a far better job assessing this, but there could be some mutual correlation between verbal and interviews.

 

[efle]

From the same paper as Banco mentioned

Verbal is important long term. But @Law2Doc is talking out his ass if he thinks there is good evidence of Verbal trumping Bio and Composite for Step scores.

Here's the paper he referenced

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...9B9A7C0?doi=10.1.1.453.6500&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Where in there does it show Verbal as highest correlating?

 

[Law2Doc]

From the same paper as Banco mentioned

Verbal is important long term. But @Law2Doc is talking out his ass if he thinks there is good evidence of Verbal trumping Bio and Composite for Step scores.

Here's the paper he referenced

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...9B9A7C0?doi=10.1.1.453.6500&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Where in there does it show Verbal as highest correlating?

My bad -- should have pulled the paper rather than just pulled it from the discussion in a prior thread. I encourage you guys to find the 2006 SDN thread because it's full of references, better than the one I grabbed. The cite I pulled doesn't appear to be on point, as it doesn't break out the sections with respect to the steps as usefully as I'd hoped, although it postulated (without providing data) that verbal reasoning and writing sections might have value in terms of predicting success in the clerkship years --something also suggested in the meta-analysis by Donnolly above. It basically just posits a (weak) correlation between mcat and USMLE. The 2006 thread has other references. I would point out though that all these studies are small scale and from the 90s, and the correlations, though statistically significant, weren't that impressive. If it wasn't a hot academic topic I'm not sure some of these articles would get published.

It's all kind of moot/academic though. The correlation for any section was never that overwhelming and the MCAT has since drastically changed, rendering most of these papers irrelevent. It's a very different test you'll take now than in 1992.

 

[jl lin]

@rachiie01, at least from my end, I was referring to the ability to learn, apply, and communicate information--familiar as well as new, which is fundamental to learning anything; hence my original quote by the educator that mathematics even requires sound verbal reasoning skills in order to both learn and teach. (The one above the PR quote.)

It's why people learn language, reading, and writing before anything else. It's tremendously foundational, and it continues to be so throughout life. Now I don't disagree about doing well in the sciences; but if you have good comprehension and verbal reasoning skills, it can only help you in understanding, reasoning, and then applying the sciences.

So, what I am saying is it's not this either/or kind of thing. There are strong reasons for all these areas placed on the exam--especially the VR. Critical analysis and reasoning is considered important in that it is an indicator of how well the student can learn. Much of the didactic components of medicine require sound comprehension and reasoning skills.

If that is indeed the case, which it clearly is, why couldn't/wouldn't VR/CARS be an important indicator of success in and after MS?
The importance of sound comprehension and reasoning is not some outlandish notion. It's not like it hasn't been a pretty sound metric for scholastic success. I mean this is nothing new.

As I said, based on what you shared, it sounds like something was off somehow in that you didn't do as well on the VR sec of the MCAT. I can't help but wonder if you retook it, which I am by no means suggesting you do--just hypothetical--I think you would score higher. Maybe it was something as simple as perhaps you enjoyed and were more engaged in the sciences on the exam--deeming it your priority and/or your highest level of interest. We tend to do better on those things we like or things we prioritize.

Either way, I would not discourage people from focusing and doing well on the VR. One's ability to comprehend and apply new information will be important in MS and thereafter and it's heavy focus is reasonable to evaluate when seeking admission to any graduate-level program. It is no less important for medicine.

 

[jl lin]

Verbal is an important section, but not really because applicants have communication skills (those are assessed by the interviews and essays), but more so on how applicants can decipher a set of unknown passages accurately within a short period. I think that's an important skill in itself since the medical career requires a lot of reading and analysis.

Yes.

 

[jl lin]

Strictly analyzing passages without any background knowledge is what makes verbal unique, even though it requires using a different reasoning approach from the sciences. Of course, the biology section now would surely have a much stronger correlation with medical school performance thanks to its recent emphasis on analyzing research papers and experimental setups. But the sciences and seemingly the P/S section also require content knowledge to do well, something which verbal lacks.

And the reason for the latter has to do with CARS being a strong prognostic indicator for how the student-applicant processes NEW/unfamiliar information. Good certifying and licensing exams include evaluating for this ability.

 

[Affiche]

@jl lin the issue with your argument though is that there are plenty of people who score 90th percentile and above on the science sections but fall short on verbal reasoning (myself included). If there was some core foundation that applicants needed for "fundamental learning" that verbal tests for, then surely you wouldn't see applicants scoring so high in the science sections (which obviously requires ability to learn, comprehend and apply new information) but low in verbal reasoning. In other words, if my lower verbal score was indicative of a hindered ability to learn new information, then why did I have no problem performing on the other sections of the MCAT? I am not an anomaly; it is not uncommon for applicants to have a much lower verbal score than their other two sections.

It's why people learn language, reading, and writing before anything else. It's tremendously foundational, and it continues to be so throughout life.

This is grasping for straws. Your argument depends on the assumption that if one performs poorly in verbal reasoning, he/she must lack a foundation in language, reading and writing. There isn't any evidence of this. I speak 5 languages (including English) and have straight A's in English classes all throughout college at a university that's notorious for grade deflation. The verbal reasoning section is a 90 minute exam under incredibly stressful, timed conditions. There is nothing to demonstrate that performing poorly (or average) in these 90 minutes has any valid predictive value for one's ability to read and write. Again, if it did, you wouldn't see high PS/BS and low verbal.

And the reason for the latter has to do with CARS being a strong prognostic indicator for how the student-applicant processes NEW/unfamiliar information. Good certifying and licensing exams include evaluating for this ability.

This statement leads me to believe that you don't know much about the new MCAT at all. The other three sections on this test are all filled with passages composed of "NEW/unfamiliar information". The MCAT2015 is largely an application, not content, based exam.

 

[Affiche]

although it postulated (without providing data) that verbal reasoning and writing sections might have value in terms of predicting success in the clerkship years --something also suggested in the meta-analysis by Donnolly above.

This is very weak, at best. The meta-analysis I cited (a year after the thread you're referring to) found that the writing section was essentially useless and that verbal reasoning has the weakest predictive value of all scores looked at, which was already a weak pool to begin with.

In summary, there is no persuasive evidence to indicate that a lower verbal reasoning score is predictive of lower prospects for success as a med student or as a physician. So, I think we can all stop telling naive applicants that they lack an ability to learn new information and are doomed to fail when clearly that's just not true .

But #realtalk, I'd still recommend retaking a 7 in any section (or an 8 on the sciences) simply because that score is just not competitive. The application process is an expensive one, why risk having to do it all again because you didn't retake the test and bump your score up 1 point?

 

[jl lin]

It's about learning and applying new or unfamiliar information in a different way. Certain certifying, licensing, and entrance exams have a portion of questions on the test that are indication of how well the information is evaluated and applied without any other familiar information. You have to make inferences and judgments about this information. They are not meant to be simply all literal-based questions but more inferential.

"The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section of the MCAT exam will be similar to many of the verbal reasoning tests you have taken in your academic career. It includes passages and questions that test your ability to understand what you read. You may find this section to be unique in several ways, though, because it has been developed specifically to measure the analysis and reasoning skills you will need to be successful in medical school. The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section achieves this goal by asking you to read and think about passages from a wide range of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, followed by a series of questions that lead you through the process of comprehending, analyzing, and reasoning about the material you have read."--What’s on the MCAT2015 Exam? Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills, AAMC.


Many kinds of professional licensing board exams include or weave these kinds of questions, which are not merely separated out as verbal reasoning, throughout their exams. They may, by by necessity, will include the science and practices of the particular discipline and literal questions as well.

It has to do with higher level thinking. The number one concern over which students sought my help at the college was with inferential reading and critical analysis.

I don't know one serious critical care intensivist, internal medicine doc--pick any number of specialties within IM, or pediatric intensivists that isn't up to their eyeballs in reading, learning, looking at newer and older research, and contributing to it.
Medicine isn't the kind of field where it is good to be weak in both literal and inferential reading and analysis. It's a huge part of what a physician does--yes, some more so than others; but that really is the requirement to stay current and sharp and to utilize best practices.

This is very weak, at best. The meta-analysis I cited (a year after the thread you're referring to) found that the writing section was essentially useless and that verbal reasoning has the weakest predictive value of all scores looked at, which was already a weak pool to begin with.

Perhaps this is but one of the reasons the MCAT was revamped--2015.

I won't continue to go back and forth over this. For me, it's res ipsa loquitur; however there is information on this, but you have to be willing to look beyond the MCAT. I'm not into those databases right now, and won't be for at least a month or so.

As I said before, good luck to you.

 

[Affiche]

Again, the other sections on the MCAT also require answering questions based on passages with unfamiliar content. You didn't actually respond to that, you just quoted what CARS is supposed to test for. There's no data to show that CARS score actually correlates with being a good physician. ''A different way'' is irrelevant without data to demonstrate that this ''different way'' has predictive value.

You can quote random educators who share your beliefs, TPR or AAMC's statement of what they hope this section will test for, but the fact of the matter is that you have no data to show that these statements hold any truth. Actually, the data show just the opposite.

 

[jl lin]

Again, the other sections on the MCAT also require answering questions based on passages with unfamiliar content. You didn't actually respond to that, you just quoted what CARS is supposed to test for. There's no data to show that CARS score actually correlates with being a good physician. ''A different way'' is irrelevant without data to demonstrate that this ''different way'' has predictive value.

You can quote random educators who share your beliefs, TPR or AAMC's statement of what they hope this section will test for, but the fact of the matter is that you have no data to show that these statements hold any truth. Actually, the data show just the opposite.

Actually, since what you just stated isn't new, this is, again, why they changed the MCAT. You can study about test constructs if you like. You can peel through the databases. I am not going to do it; b/c a. I don't have access to them at this time--as I said--and b.What would be the point? You have looked at something and decided that's it. You have made your decision, right, wrong, or indifferent. Do you actually think they just pulled this stuff out of a hat re: comprehensive testing construct? I mean, the whole science behind it has been going on for years.

There is no one test that will "show that (any one thing) actually correlates with being a good physician." There are, however, prognostic indicators. Those other areas of the exam should also have inferential reading in them. But a lot of those other areas are about literal knowledge. The CARS is meant to stretch you a bit further in testing your interpretative and inferential thinking and analyses skills. That's it.

It's not going to predict or make someone a magnificent physician, and there is no one exam that will do that.

 

[Affiche]

Actually, since what you just stated isn't new, this is, again, why they changed the MCAT. You can study about test constructs if you like. You can peel through the databases. I am not going to do it; b/c a. I don't have access to them at this time--as I said--and b.What would be the point? You have looked at something and decided that's it. You have made your decision, right, wrong, or indifferent. Do you actually think they just pulled this stuff out of a hat re: comprehensive testing construct? I mean, the whole science behind it has been going on for years.

There is no one test that will "show that (any one thing) actually correlates with being a good physician." There are, however, prognostic indicators. Those other areas of the exam should also have inferential reading in them. But a lot of those other areas are about literal knowledge. The CARS is meant to stretch you a bit further in testing your interpretative and inferential thinking and analyses skills. That's it.

It's not going to predict or make someone a magnificent physician, and there is no one exam that will do that.

Well, AAMC used to use a writing sample and eventually had to throw it out because it was useless, so I don't rely on the hopes and desires of AAMC too much lol.

I do agree though that no test will indicate one's ability to be a good physician.

 

[daman89]

I honestly think the bio section is a better at testing "inferential thinking and analyses skills". The verbal section is reading boring, unrelated passages and answering subjective and vague questions, which tests a very specific skill. However, neither is a great predictor.

 

[Lawpy]

From the same paper as Banco mentioned

Verbal is important long term. But @Law2Doc is talking out his ass if he thinks there is good evidence of Verbal trumping Bio and Composite for Step scores.

Here's the paper he referenced

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...9B9A7C0?doi=10.1.1.453.6500&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Where in there does it show Verbal as highest correlating?

It seems the long term importance of verbal is tied in some way to the nature of interviews, since both deal with communication and interpretation skills relevant in residency and in practice.

I have no idea where he found the correlation lol, but it goes to show some importance of the MCAT subsections, with verbal having a long-term importance and PS/BS having a short-term USMLE importance in medical school. However, the constant changing of the MCAT makes all these correlation papers useless, so it's important to just do well in all sections and move on.

 

[jl lin]

It seems the long term importance of verbal is tied in some way to the nature of interviews, since both deal with communication and interpretation skills relevant in residency and in practice.

I have no idea where he found the correlation lol, but it goes to show some importance of the MCAT subsections, with verbal having a long-term importance and PS/BS having a short-term USMLE importance in medical school. However, the constant changing of the MCAT makes all these correlation papers useless, so it's important to just do well in all sections and move on.

hahaha...yes, at the end of the day, I agree. Focus on doing well in all sections, which means, regardless, improving inferential and analysis skills.

There is no question about the fact that people will be tested ad nauseum throughout and even after medical school. So, I say, just get used to it.

 

[Yojimbo_OGT]

An interesting tidbit that always crosses my mind is how much of a correlation there is of time spent studying for the MCAT to MCAT performances. The MCAT is supposed to be an examination of inherent skill, which I think it is for the most part, but I don't think it's out of the question that studying exclusively for the format and lexicon of the MCAT can increase composite scores by ~3-5. From my personal experience, 100% of people who took Kaplan or hired some private tutor received the cash to pay for it from their parents. I'm not naive enough to think I can generalize this, as I know there probably are some pre-meds have worked hard to be able to afford such costs themselves; although I have not met any (though I'm sure I will meet one in a reply to this comment). The point being, some are fortunate enough to have been able to study/prepare for the MCAT, and I'm curious as how much this skews the results and interpretation of this exam.

I would be so bold as to say this is a major factor of the jump between high BS/PS scores and low scores. Assuming test-takers have already taken the pre-reqs, they can freely review notes/formulas and gain a paradigm competent enough to excel in the sciences. These sections do not solely prompt regurgitation of cold facts, but they present unseen data to the test-taker and ask for quantitative AND qualitative assessment. Many pre-meds have a life-science undergrad major, so they have plenty of exposure to interpreting data during high-stress periods of time (e.g., exams in Molecular Biology); thus they have honed a skill that is reflected by >90% PS/BS subscores.

Now, how can some of us prepare to sculpt a proper mindset for VR? The only advice that I received to improve VR (prior to a recent post I read on SDN about two weeks ago) is drop a fat load of money. The only viable option presented to me was to take a course, but this would have pushed my UG graduation back a semester (which would have caused too many complications in my life). At any rate, I went without studying for VR, even for a second. I don't think I need to tell you how that turned out...

Sorry for the long, seemingly pointless, and non-productive post. I just subjectively think that if MCAT scores/subscores have any implications on USMLEs, then they may have a very practical aspect in nature (though not exclusively why); money is a very real thing. Loans? At least they provide you with enough grocery money. Scholarships? White male and not interested in golf, so not qualified for much. Job? Sure, but I'll waste all my money on med school applications. Parents? Drinking sure makes fools of us all.

Unfortunately, the struggles of my life are not unique, and for many of us, they can manifest into mediocre and sub-par stats. I'm not asking for sympathy or words of encouragement, but I am trying to make a case that standardized scores are a poor reflection on the potential of many students. What they attempt to portray is convoluted by 'life variables' that must be justified within a personal statement (which I foolishly focused on my commitment to patients and the community). All I can do, though, is hope Adcoms give me and others like me a chance. A subscore 7 is low, yes, but it is by no means a measure by how an individual can greatly impact the lives of others.

tl;dr

 

[efle]

An interesting tidbit that always crosses my mind is how much of a correlation there is of time spent studying for the MCAT to MCAT performances. The MCAT is supposed to be an examination of inherent skill, which I think it is for the most part, but I don't think it's out of the question that studying exclusively for the format and lexicon of the MCAT can increase composite scores by ~3-5. From my personal experience, 100% of people who took Kaplan or hired some private tutor received the cash to pay for it from their parents. I'm not naive enough to think I can generalize this, as I know there probably are some pre-meds have worked hard to be able to afford such costs themselves; although I have not met any (though I'm sure I will meet one in a reply to this comment). The point being, some are fortunate enough to have been able to study/prepare for the MCAT, and I'm curious as how much this skews the results and interpretation of this exam.

I would be so bold as to say this is a major factor of the jump between high BS/PS scores and low scores. Assuming test-takers have already taken the pre-reqs, they can freely review notes/formulas and gain a paradigm competent enough to excel in the sciences. These sections do not solely prompt regurgitation of cold facts, but they present unseen data to the test-taker and ask for quantitative AND qualitative assessment. Many pre-meds have a life-science undergrad major, so they have plenty of exposure to interpreting data during high-stress periods of time (e.g., exams in Molecular Biology); thus they have honed a skill that is reflected by >90% PS/BS subscores.

Now, how can some of us prepare to sculpt a proper mindset for VR? The only advice that I received to improve VR (prior to a recent post I read on SDN about two weeks ago) is drop a fat load of money. The only viable option presented to me was to take a course, but this would have pushed my UG graduation back a semester (which would have caused too many complications in my life). At any rate, I went without studying for VR, even for a second. I don't think I need to tell you how that turned out...

Sorry for the long, seemingly pointless, and non-productive post. I just subjectively think that if MCAT scores/subscores have any implications on USMLEs, then they may have a very practical aspect in nature (though not exclusively why); money is a very real thing. Loans? At least they provide you with enough grocery money. Scholarships? White male and not interested in golf, so not qualified for much. Job? Sure, but I'll waste all my money on med school applications. Parents? Drinking sure makes fools of us all.

Unfortunately, the struggles of my life are not unique, and for many of us, they can manifest into mediocre and sub-par stats. I'm not asking for sympathy or words of encouragement, but I am trying to make a case that standardized scores are a poor reflection on the potential of many students. What they attempt to portray is convoluted by 'life variables' that must be justified within a personal statement (which I foolishly focused on my commitment to patients and the community). All I can do, though, is hope Adcoms give me and others like me a chance. A subscore 7 is low, yes, but it is by no means a measure by how an individual can greatly impact the lives of others.

tl;dr

Just have to reflexively say it: Prep classes are entirely unnecessary and a massive waste of cash!

 

[Cotterpin]

Why is CARS such a raw nerve for some people?

 

[efle]

Why is CARS such a raw nerve for some people?

People who do well on sciences and poorly on verb want to dismiss it as subjective/poorly written/worthless as a metric. The alternative explanation that they are lacking in an important type of reasoning ability is obviously uncomfortable

 

[Cotterpin]

I think the reading comprehension used in the science sections is just different from the kind used in CARS. Probably the best preparation for CARS is to just spend a bunch of time reading non-fiction in various fields. The best prep for the reading comp in the other sections is to read scientific papers. It's a total different style and the kind of information you are getting out of each is very different.

 

[finestein]

 

[Affiche]

Alternatively, people who score well on verbal like to use this score as an ego boost and get defensive when data is shown to support that this score has little predictive value in med school success.

 

[stemingen]

My 2 cents on VR section: those passages and questions are deliberately designed to be unnecessarily challenging to test capabilities involved in reading and comprehension. Those passages and questions, in fact, would never be part of real life communication. Imagine a history and physical write-up was written in similar fashion, how other healthcare professionals will appreciate that effort?

Yes I did poorly on VR...

 

[Cotterpin]

Alternatively, people who score well on verbal like to use this score as an ego boost and get defensive when data is shown to support that this score has little predictive value in med school success.

Yeah, see how this is a raw nerve?

 

[Affiche]

Yeah, see how this is a raw nerve?

It is for both sides though. You're either telling those that scored poorly that they're unintelligent or those that scored well that it doesn't matter much in terms of doing well in med school (which can be particularly touchy if said person didn't score as well on bio).

The only thing I ''lacked'' was the motivation to do a practice verbal passage before my MCAT. I'm alright with that lol. Insinuating that my choice to wing a section of the test indicates lack of knowledge, intelligence or whatever isn't just insulting, it's also incorrect/not supported. That's what people have issues with.

 

[efle]

The ego boost would probs be from reading comp correlating with intelligence, more than with med school grades or step scores

I believe we've already established that you're a freak case of too-smart-to-score-well

 

[Affiche]

The ego boost would probs be from reading comp correlating with intelligence, more than with med school grades or step scores

I believe we've already established that you're a freak case of too-smart-to-score-well

Haha I'm not a freak case or too smart for anything! I just totally winged the section out of cockiness from the LSAT and paid for it.

 

[efle]

No, that's exactly your logic: you were too good at picking out reasons why arguments were flawed, and needed to practice dumbing yourself down before you could score well. Not that I think you're wrong

 

[Affiche]

No, that's exactly your logic: you were too good at picking out reasons why arguments were flawed, and needed to practice dumbing yourself down before you could score well. Not that I think you're wrong

That's not exactly my logic though. The MCAT largely tests for reading comprehension of main ideas whereas the LSAT tests more for logical reasoning within the context of reading comprehension. It doesn't mean the MCAT is ''dumbed down'', it just means they're different. I took the MCAT as if I was taking the LSAT and I cancelled out correct answers because they weren't supported. My mistake.

The MCAT is also a much longer test (90 minute section as opposed to 35 on the LSAT) and fatigue could have influenced me heavily. Idk. But there are plenty of reasons why someone who is intelligent would score sub-par on verbal. Using this score to diagnose someone as lacking something fundamental is silly.

 

[Cotterpin]

It is for both sides though. You're either telling those that scored poorly that they're unintelligent or those that scored well that it doesn't matter much in terms of doing well in med school (which can be particularly touchy if said person didn't score as well on bio).

The only thing I ''lacked'' was the motivation to do a practice verbal passage before my MCAT. I'm alright with that lol. Insinuating that my choice to wing a section of the test indicates lack of knowledge, intelligence or whatever isn't just insulting, it's also incorrect/not supported. That's what people have issues with.

Well, I didn't say or even insinuate anything about your intelligence.

 

[efle]

That's not exactly my logic though. The MCAT largely tests for reading comprehension of main ideas whereas the LSAT tests more for logical reasoning within the context of reading comprehension. It doesn't mean the MCAT is ''dumbed down'', it just means they're different. I took the MCAT as if I was taking the LSAT and I cancelled out correct answers because they weren't supported. My mistake.

The MCAT is also a much longer test (90 minute section as opposed to 35 on the LSAT) and fatigue could have influenced me heavily. Idk. But there are plenty of reasons why someone who is intelligent would score sub-par on verbal. Using this score to diagnose someone with as lacking is silly.

Agreed it is high false negative, low false positive situation imo

 

[efle]

Well, I didn't say or even insinuate anything about your intelligence.

She was really addressing me

@rachiie01 you'll love straight outta compton if you haven't seen it yet. "Bye Felicia" makes a great appearance

 

[Affiche]

Agreed it is high false negative, low false positive situation imo

I absolutely agree with this.

I haven't but now I'm excited!! That hashtag could really make more of an appearance on SDN lol.

And yes lol I was addressing @efle but it wasn't meant to sound bitter or anything. I'm on my janky phone again so my responses are a bit more terse than usual. And now I'm getting off because I absolutely hate using my phone for SDN

 

[Cotterpin]

I have this theory about CARS that it's actually so easy that it's harder to get into the very high percentiles because the competition is much stiffer. Or like the preset curve or whatever the AAMC made for CARS is just harder to beat.

 

[efle]

I have this theory about CARS that it's actually so easy that it's harder to get into the very high percentiles because the competition is much stiffer. Or like the preset curve or whatever the AAMC made for CARS is just harder to beat.

I think this is very true. The curve is generated by making it insanely punishing at the far right tail, one point off per wrong question. It's very different than something like an Ochem exam with a median in the 30s, where instead of having to nail a million easy questions, you stand out by nailing a handful of extremely tough ones.

I have noticed the same thing in classes too. Getting an A in sociology, anthropology, psych, some bio classes can actually be tougher than in prereqs, if you're very strong at solving tough problems but only average at memorization and easy problems.

 

[tantacles]

Just to add to this interesting discussion, my partner was accepted to a US MD school with a verbal score of 6 and total score of 33.

 

[efle]

Just to add to this interesting discussion, my partner was accepted to a US MD school with a verbal score of 6 and total score of 33.

URM? ESL? GPA? Friendly state school? Must give some context for this outlier!

 

[tantacles]

URM? ESL? GPA? Friendly state school? Must give some context for this outlier!

ORM, not ESL, very high GPA, private school.

 

[efle]

Interesting! Was her composite MCAT higher than the school median? Did she have an opinion on why Verbal was so much lower for her? Was there anything else beside the GPA that was very strong compared to the norm (publications, a thousand hours volunteerism, a demonstrated interest in under served etc)?

 

[moisne]

Top 20, I think my verbal was 6 or 7.

 

[efle]

Top 20, I think my verbal was 6 or 7.

Same questions to you! URM/ESL/GPA/what was spectacular about your app?

 

[moisne]

Same questions to you! URM/ESL/GPA/what was spectacular about your app?

Good question...
Not URM
I am ESL - (English as second language?) - but I didn't mention that.
I didn't apply as disadvantage or anything (though I didn't realize being poor qualified - the whole 6 people in 2 bed rooms and never see my parents apparently qualified that)

I'm not sure what was so spectacular to be honest. I scored pretty high in bio and perfect score in physical science. I'm an ChemE (does that explain my verbal? Lol).

I had a pretty high GPA - only applied 6 schools, interviews at 2. Accepted to my instate school and cancelled my other interview.

I did spend a few years teaching in TFA and worked on an oil rig, and interned at NASA (remote work) and published first author - but I'm pretty sure it's pretty normal.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Nope that's a pretty strong app