Predicting Mcat From Sat

[SHINYBRAIN]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I sucked in my SAT 1500 (math-550,reading-500,writing-450). Currently I'm incoming freshman.I'm really tensed about MEd school and MCAT. I'm afraid that since I did so bad in SAT,I'll also do the same in MCAT and then can't get accepted to any med schools.I've all 5 in all my APs and a 4.9 GPA which got me into a prestigious university...but I still feel bad for not being able to get into a BS/MD program(which waives the MCAT)at a less famous college.
Do you think bad SAT scores predict bad MCAT scores?I'm especially worried about the Verbal part of mCAT.I'm not a big fan of reading,I hate reading......is there anything else I can do to make sure I've a good MCAT verbal score.

 

[deleted103730]

why do we get these threads every other day?

 

[silverlining1]

There are many stories of people who did poorly on the SAT but well on the MCAT. Don't worry. Do well in your studies in college, study for the MCAT at least a few months in advance, and do lots of practice tests. Stop worrying now.

 

[TheRealMD]

There is NO correlation between the SAT and the MCAT. None. Zip. Zero. In fact, despite what college admissions seem to think, there is little correlation between the SAT and college academic performance. People who make 1600s (or maybe it's 2400 now), may be book smart, but will quickly realize that to get through life, you're gonna have to learn PEOPLE SKILLS otherwise you will NEVER get anywhere. Period.

 

[Law2Doc]

People who make 1600s (or maybe it's 2400 now),

Have they changed the scoring? I thought my SAT back in the day was pretty good until I saw the OP whining about a 1500. 😕

 

[souslepont]

Have they changed the scoring? I thought my SAT back in the day was pretty good until I saw the OP whining about a 1500. 😕

There's a writing section now, so it's out of 2400.

 

[Law2Doc]

There's a writing section now, so it's out of 2400.

Ah. Well then it would be hard to use today's SAT to predict MCAT, given that most of the historical data on the SAT will be based on a somewhat different version test. I suspect the mere fact that there are smart people who are good test takers and the converse out there will make there be "some correlation" but I wouldn't look at it as anything you can't overcome (or screw up). Studying adequately for the MCAT is going to be the most determinative of how you do on the MCAT.

 

[bhollowp]

wait..... 4.9 GPA?

i'm calling BS

 

[midn]

I made a 1300 (out of 1600) on the SAT but didn't break a sweat making a 4.0 in college with a moderately difficult major.

It's all about being able to keep up with your work.

 

[Law2Doc]

I made a 1300 (out of 1600) on the SAT but didn't break a sweat making a 4.0 in college with a moderately difficult major.

It's all about being able to keep up with your work.

I think the OP was asking about standardized test correlations, not coursework correlations. Course grades can vary wildly from school to school because they are not standardized. The same person can get A's at one school and B's at another (and some do, over summers) just by virtue of curves, competition level, grade inflation, professor attitudes etc. So your case will be more interesting when you have an MCAT to report.

 

[Davjc2009]

wait..... 4.9 GPA?

i'm calling BS

Weird Grading System. My senior year our school switched school systems and grading systems, AP A's counted for 6, Honors A's counted for 5, Regular A's 4. It bumped my GPA from a 4.0 to a 4.3 in one year. I'd imagine the OPs's HS grading scale is similar.

 

[SigurRos]

I made a 1300 (out of 1600) on the SAT but didn't break a sweat making a 4.0 in college with a moderately difficult major.

It's all about being able to keep up with your work.

this argument is hardly usable given the variance in course difficult between undergraduate institutions.

 

[coralfangs]

wtf? 1500 on SAT = sucked?
isn't it the average for kids accepted to ivy schools?
what a troll


and yes, the variance in course difficult between undergraduate institutions is the reason why we have mcat

 

[mvenus929]

wtf? 1500 on SAT = sucked?
isn't it the average for kids accepted to ivy schools?
what a troll

SAT changed with the class of 2006. It's out of 2400 now, not 1600.

 

[Green Apple]

wtf? 1500 on SAT = sucked?
isn't it the average for kids accepted to ivy schools?
what a troll

Please read previous posts! There are 3 sections now so total score is out of 3*800 = 2400.

 

[midn]

this argument is hardly usable given the variance in course difficult between undergraduate institutions.

I don't know how to use quote more than once so this is responding to L2D's post also.

RealMD stated the lack of correlation between SAT and college performance and I was just providing an example. I misquoted the OP.

As for SigurRos, I agree fully that the course difficulty varies greatly between institutions and I didn't really mean my statement to be applied as a means to completely discredit the SAT. What I meant to express was that poor SAT performance does not doom you to poor performance in college. I found it incredibly difficult to muster up the motivation to do well on the SAT because I didn't really know exactly what I had wanted to do yet and I thought my good high school GPA would carry me through the admissions process. So I slacked quite a bit on the SAT and got a mediocre (by my standards, I don't mean offense to anyone who thinks this is a good score) score.

Anyways, by my experiences, it is far easier to pull a B than it is an A. Most of my courses at UT seemed to favor persons getting B's and made it far more difficult to get A's. Unless you are placed on a rigorous bell curve, the grades you get are really defined by how hard you are willing to work.

Now, go on with the dead horse beating of MCAT and SAT.



Oh, returning to the original topic, I got a 1300 on the SAT but a 35 on the MCAT. You can most certainly pull up your standardized test grades. The MCAT is far more focused on the sciences so I found it far more enjoyable than the SAT.

 

[MassTransport]

There is NO correlation between the SAT and the MCAT. None. Zip. Zero. In fact, despite what college admissions seem to think, there is little correlation between the SAT and college academic performance. People who make 1600s (or maybe it's 2400 now), may be book smart, but will quickly realize that to get through life, you're gonna have to learn PEOPLE SKILLS otherwise you will NEVER get anywhere. Period.

Due respect, but your claims are groundless. The purpose of the SAT is to predict collegiate academic success. The validity of the test hinges on it. There's been studies on it (with mixed success, but definitely more than "little"). Colleges don't ask for standardized tests for standardized tests' sake. Life success certainly depends on people skills, but the same can't be said about academic performance.

And yes, there seems to be a correlation between SAT and MCAT scores, how strong of which is up to debate. The only study I know of claimed a "strong" correlation, and that was from one college. I don't think there's any national numbers. Anecdotally, you will hear about people who did poorly on the SAT but did well on the MCAT and vice versa, but these stories don't make a trend.

To the OP, forget about all these statistics. Don't let it get in your head. What matters is individual effort, not group averages. Study well and apply yourself, you have plenty of time.

 

[TheRealMD]

Due respect, but your claims are groundless. The purpose of the SAT is to predict collegiate academic success. The validity of the test hinges on it. There's been studies on it (with mixed success, but definitely more than "little"). Colleges don't ask for standardized tests for standardized tests' sake. Life success certainly depends on people skills, but the same can't be said about academic performance.

And yes, there seems to be a correlation between SAT and MCAT scores, how strong of which is up to debate. The only study I know of claimed a "strong" correlation, and that was from one college. I don't think there's any national numbers. Anecdotally, you will hear about people who did poorly on the SAT but did well on the MCAT and vice versa, but these stories don't make a trend.

To the OP, forget about all these statistics. Don't let it get in your head. What matters is individual effort, not group averages. Study well and apply yourself, you have plenty of time.

In all honesty though, merely based on the words the College Board uses, it shouldn't correlate at all. The SAT is a reasoning test, meaning that theoretically you shouldn't be studying for it in order to get a high score if you really are "smart". Practicing taking the test is NOT reasoning, it's at best good guesswork based on previous exams.

The problem that I have with using the SAT as any type of benchmark is that college involves little, if any, REASONING. For the most part, it's pure memorization of facts you must know. Repetition of the same thing over and over again. This goes for biology, chemistry, physics, math, you name it! The only problem is that real tests in college are NOT practiced repetitively. They are based on your ability to retain information, not reason out answers. Sure, those that can use guesswork based on previous exams can do well, but how often do you get to redo a college test like you can take another practice SAT or even the real SAT multiple times? See where this is going?

The SAT does not measure hardwork like college admissions boards would love it to. Hard work is what gets you through life, not god-given smarts, because once you reach that point where you actually DON'T know something or can't reason it out and must study it by spending a lot of time, boy, that's when people say life is hard for them.

Now, people might still argue that there's a correlation between people who have high SAT scores and their grades in college and that's really because they know the value of hard work. If you don't however, pfft, life will be tough for you.

 

[Chuck's Right Foot]

There is NO correlation between the SAT and the MCAT. None. Zip. Zero. In fact, despite what college admissions seem to think, there is little correlation between the SAT and college academic performance. People who make 1600s (or maybe it's 2400 now), may be book smart, but will quickly realize that to get through life, you're gonna have to learn PEOPLE SKILLS otherwise you will NEVER get anywhere. Period.

I'll bet you $1k that the correlation of SAT and MCAT is greater than 0.

 

[spanamit]

college involves little, if any, REASONING. For the most part, it's pure memorization of facts you must know. Repetition of the same thing over and over again. This goes for biology, chemistry, physics, math, you name it!

I disagree. It completely depends on what college you go to, and more importantly, what classes/professors you have. Classes I have had to take had tests with very little memorization and were mostly based on reasoning.


If you don't believe me, consider the following test question from an introductory biology course:


Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) may be hydrolyzed to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inorganic phosphate (Pi) with a free energy change ΔG of -7.3 kcal/mol. Suppose you are a molecular bioengineer at a biotech company, and that you have just created a new protein molecular motor which hydrolyzes ATP to perform rotary mechanical work.

A. You decide to determine the efficiency of the motor by measuring how many revolutions a single molecular motor can make upon hydrolyzing a known number of ATP molecules (similar to Noji et al., 386: 299, 1997). The efficiency of any motor is defined by the ratio of work performed to the energy input. The work of rotation (W) is given by the following product: W=γxΔθ, where γ is the torque of the motor and Δθ is the total angular displacement in radians. If γ = 40 pN*nm and the motor must hydrolyze 25 ATP molecules to make three complete revolutions, what is the efficiency of the motor? (Note 1 rev = 2π radians)

B. After characterizing the ATPase activity of your motor, you find that for a given amount of enzyme it has Vmax of 0.834 μmol ADP produced/min and a Km of .334 mM. Assuming Michaelis-Menten kinetics, what initial ATP concentration (in mM) would you need to add to the motor under these conditions to achieve an initial hydrolysis rate of 0.3 μmol/min?

C. We discussed in class that cells can produce 30 ATP molecules by aerobically metabolizing a single glucose molecule. Suppose you had a technology that enabled you to harness all cellular ATP production through this pathway to drive your motor. Using the information in (A), at what rate would you need to supply a cell with glucose (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each? Assume that the rotation rate of the motor is directly proportional to ATP hydrolysis.

D. Suppose you need to design the energy-harnessing technology described in C to run in the presence of both moderate concentrations of cyanide compounds and no oxygen, such that lactate is now the main product of glucose metabolism. Now, what would be the necessary glucose supply rate (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each?

 

[artaxerxes]

I'll bet you $1k that the correlation of SAT and MCAT is greater than 0.

I want a piece of that bet, fairly certain there is correlation, some people are just better at taking exams than other people, and life is just a long list of exams until your actually settled into your practice. All the hardwork in the world won't help you if you just aren't smart enough, can't remember things, or freak out on test day.

Myself: 1480 (I think), and 40N
My SATII were: Bio 800, Chem 760, Math 740, American His 790, Writing 720

 

[spanamit]

I want a piece of that bet, fairly certain there is correlation, some people are just better at taking exams than other people, and life is just a long list of exams until your actually settled into your practice. All the hardwork in the world won't help you if you just aren't smart enough, can't remember things, or freak out on test day.

Myself: 1480 (I think), and 40N
My SATII were: Bio 800, Chem 760, Math 740, American His 790, Writing 720

I second that.
SAT>1500 (out of 1600)
MCAT: XXX

 

[HanginInThere]

I'm especially worried about the Verbal part of mCAT.I'm not a big fan of reading,I hate reading......is there anything else I can do to make sure I've a good MCAT verbal score.

Have you looked at the MCAT's structure? The WHOLE thing requires reading, not just the verbal reasoning section. Each section is composed of written passages, with a series of questions following each passage. So while the science sections definitely do require and test your scientific knowledge, if you can't deal with the reading you're screwed before you start.

But I don't understand. How did you ever manage a 4.9 high school GPA if you hate reading?

 

[MassTransport]

In all honesty though, merely based on the words the College Board uses, it shouldn't correlate at all. The SAT is a reasoning test, meaning that theoretically you shouldn't be studying for it in order to get a high score if you really are "smart". Practicing taking the test is NOT reasoning, it's at best good guesswork based on previous exams.

The problem that I have with using the SAT as any type of benchmark is that college involves little, if any, REASONING. For the most part, it's pure memorization of facts you must know. Repetition of the same thing over and over again. This goes for biology, chemistry, physics, math, you name it! The only problem is that real tests in college are NOT practiced repetitively. They are based on your ability to retain information, not reason out answers. Sure, those that can use guesswork based on previous exams can do well, but how often do you get to redo a college test like you can take another practice SAT or even the real SAT multiple times? See where this is going?

The SAT does not measure hardwork like college admissions boards would love it to. Hard work is what gets you through life, not god-given smarts, because once you reach that point where you actually DON'T know something or can't reason it out and must study it by spending a lot of time, boy, that's when people say life is hard for them.

Now, people might still argue that there's a correlation between people who have high SAT scores and their grades in college and that's really because they know the value of hard work. If you don't however, pfft, life will be tough for you.

Don't get caught up in the semantics. You need to know things to be successful on the SAT. You need to know things to be successful on the MCAT.

I also don't know what classes you're taking, but there's definitely reasoning at UT/any credible university.

At any rate, the correlation is most likely above none, and I think it's irresponsible to make such strong claims and give that kind of advice without really knowing. Story of this board, isn't it?

 

[mvenus929]

If you don't believe me, consider the following test question from an introductory biology course:

Well, I've had exams like that (not as involved, but reasoning). I remember one of my cell bio questions was to design a motor based on water, and you had to know how a flagella worked, and apply it to a motor. Or he gave a product that said it helped increase energy in anaerobic exercise conditions, and you had to justify how it might or might not.

And if we're comparing SAT and MCAT scores still...
SAT: 1330 (630 Verbal, 700 Math)
MCAT: 36R (11V-12P-13B)

 

[midn]

I disagree. It completely depends on what college you go to, and more importantly, what classes/professors you have. Classes I have had to take had tests with very little memorization and were mostly based on reasoning.


If you don't believe me, consider the following test question from an introductory biology course:


Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) may be hydrolyzed to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inorganic phosphate (Pi) with a free energy change ΔG of -7.3 kcal/mol. Suppose you are a molecular bioengineer at a biotech company, and that you have just created a new protein molecular motor which hydrolyzes ATP to perform rotary mechanical work.

A. You decide to determine the efficiency of the motor by measuring how many revolutions a single molecular motor can make upon hydrolyzing a known number of ATP molecules (similar to Noji et al., 386: 299, 1997). The efficiency of any motor is defined by the ratio of work performed to the energy input. The work of rotation (W) is given by the following product: W=γxΔθ, where γ is the torque of the motor and Δθ is the total angular displacement in radians. If γ = 40 pN*nm and the motor must hydrolyze 25 ATP molecules to make three complete revolutions, what is the efficiency of the motor? (Note 1 rev = 2π radians)

B. After characterizing the ATPase activity of your motor, you find that for a given amount of enzyme it has Vmax of 0.834 μmol ADP produced/min and a Km of .334 mM. Assuming Michaelis-Menten kinetics, what initial ATP concentration (in mM) would you need to add to the motor under these conditions to achieve an initial hydrolysis rate of 0.3 μmol/min?

C. We discussed in class that cells can produce 30 ATP molecules by aerobically metabolizing a single glucose molecule. Suppose you had a technology that enabled you to harness all cellular ATP production through this pathway to drive your motor. Using the information in (A), at what rate would you need to supply a cell with glucose (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each? Assume that the rotation rate of the motor is directly proportional to ATP hydrolysis.

D. Suppose you need to design the energy-harnessing technology described in C to run in the presence of both moderate concentrations of cyanide compounds and no oxygen, such that lactate is now the main product of glucose metabolism. Now, what would be the necessary glucose supply rate (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each?

Wow, that was intro bio? That has hardly anything to do with biology other than the context of the question. It's mostly plugging in equations from a variety of sources.

 

[Law2Doc]

The SAT is a reasoning test, meaning that theoretically you shouldn't be studying for it in order to get a high score if you really are "smart". Practicing taking the test is NOT reasoning, it's at best good guesswork based on previous exams.

Well, if studying didn't maximize an SAT score, then nobody would have ever heard of Stanley Kaplan. A cottage industry of prep courses was created on the notion that you could add hundreds of points to your test by studying, and this is one test where they consistently show improvement over folks who didn't take such prep courses. Reading comprehension, having a good vocabulary, math skills are all things that are not innate and can be learned/improved by study.

 

[Ookluh]

- 1350 SAT (740 Math, 610 Verbal) - Did some minor math preparation off a prep CD. I think I took it twice, getting a 1210 or 1240 or something the first time.
- 33 ACT? Not sure - still trying to find my old results. I remember it roughly translated to the upper 1400s, so I believe that was it (after looking up the equivalence charts recently).
- 36Q (13P/13B/10V) MCAT. I did take a prep course for this, and studied my butt off.. and also quit my ambulance job, because they refused to let me work part-time or take any time off.. which would have made taking a prep course pretty much impossible due to overlap of my shifts and class time.

The MCAT is all about preparation, IMHO. My diagnostic was a 21, and that was after a month or so of studying Biology on my own. Of course, knowledge comes into play as well.. but I saw my score climb about three points just by taking a few more practice tests (a total of six or so). Budgeting my time better was a huge factor in the improvement of my score over those last few tests.

 

[cnoevil]

I disagree. It completely depends on what college you go to, and more importantly, what classes/professors you have. Classes I have had to take had tests with very little memorization and were mostly based on reasoning.


If you don't believe me, consider the following test question from an introductory biology course:

blah, blah, blah

don't bring in a intro bio test from cal tech and call it normal-

 

[JackieTreehorn]

Well, if studying didn't maximize an SAT score, then nobody would have ever heard of Stanley Kaplan. A cottage industry of prep courses was created on the notion that you could add hundreds of points to your test by studying, and this is one test where they consistently show improvement over folks who didn't take such prep courses. Reading comprehension, having a good vocabulary, math skills are all things that are not innate and can be learned/improved by study.

Not sure what you mean when you say study. I really don't think you can study reading comprehension per se, the best improvement for vocabulary my teachers always drilled into me is to read with a dictionary instead of memorizing a list. If you use their practice tests to work on your verbal score that's a really good strategy, but their actual theory on how to read is useless.

 

[Vera18]

I sucked in my SAT 1500 (math-550,reading-500,writing-450). Currently I'm incoming freshman.I'm really tensed about MEd school and MCAT. I'm afraid that since I did so bad in SAT,I'll also do the same in MCAT and then can't get accepted to any med schools.I've all 5 in all my APs and a 4.9 GPA which got me into a prestigious university...but I still feel bad for not being able to get into a BS/MD program(which waives the MCAT)at a less famous college.
Do you think bad SAT scores predict bad MCAT scores?I'm especially worried about the Verbal part of mCAT.I'm not a big fan of reading,I hate reading......is there anything else I can do to make sure I've a good MCAT verbal score.

Ok, we both know that you got a 1050 on the SATs because colleges don't really look at the writing section, so I don't know why you mentioned that score. And are you sure you got into a 'prestigious' school with those scores? (regardless of AP grades and ECs, because I have those). If you really did, tell me which one, because I wanna go! With my writing counted in I got a 2000, so..

To answer your question, as many already have, the SAT is nothing like the MCAT. The MCAT has three sections - two sciences and one reading. There are no math (shame 🙁) or writing (woot! ) sections. Try to think of the MCAT as an AP bio exam mixed in with some AP lang (without the 3-4 essays). If you study, you'll pass. If not, you'll most likely fail. It's that simple. {which you probably know, seeing that you got some 5s}

BTW, what kind of an AP Scholar are you?

 

[veenut]

I sucked in my SAT 1500 (math-550,reading-500,writing-450). Currently I'm incoming freshman.I'm really tensed about MEd school and MCAT. I'm afraid that since I did so bad in SAT,I'll also do the same in MCAT and then can't get accepted to any med schools.I've all 5 in all my APs and a 4.9 GPA which got me into a prestigious university...but I still feel bad for not being able to get into a BS/MD program(which waives the MCAT)at a less famous college.
Do you think bad SAT scores predict bad MCAT scores?I'm especially worried about the Verbal part of mCAT.I'm not a big fan of reading,I hate reading......is there anything else I can do to make sure I've a good MCAT verbal score.

Unbelievable. You're asking if there's a way to improve your reading comprehension without having to read? Grow up and find something you enjoy reading - I don't know too many educated people that categorically hate reading.

 

[mvenus929]

There are no math (shame 🙁) or writing (woot! ) sections.

Umm... there is a writing section. It's an hour long, just like the verbal section, and you get to write two essays. It's just not counted in your numerical score.

 

[misterex]

Wasn't there a post a long time ago where someone tried to find a line of best fit between sat and mcat scores? I think the correlation was pretty low though, as expected.

 

[Palaver87]

I disagree. It completely depends on what college you go to, and more importantly, what classes/professors you have. Classes I have had to take had tests with very little memorization and were mostly based on reasoning.


If you don't believe me, consider the following test question from an introductory biology course:


Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) may be hydrolyzed to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inorganic phosphate (Pi) with a free energy change ΔG of -7.3 kcal/mol. Suppose you are a molecular bioengineer at a biotech company, and that you have just created a new protein molecular motor which hydrolyzes ATP to perform rotary mechanical work.

A. You decide to determine the efficiency of the motor by measuring how many revolutions a single molecular motor can make upon hydrolyzing a known number of ATP molecules (similar to Noji et al., 386: 299, 1997). The efficiency of any motor is defined by the ratio of work performed to the energy input. The work of rotation (W) is given by the following product: W=γxΔθ, where γ is the torque of the motor and Δθ is the total angular displacement in radians. If γ = 40 pN*nm and the motor must hydrolyze 25 ATP molecules to make three complete revolutions, what is the efficiency of the motor? (Note 1 rev = 2π radians)

B. After characterizing the ATPase activity of your motor, you find that for a given amount of enzyme it has Vmax of 0.834 μmol ADP produced/min and a Km of .334 mM. Assuming Michaelis-Menten kinetics, what initial ATP concentration (in mM) would you need to add to the motor under these conditions to achieve an initial hydrolysis rate of 0.3 μmol/min?

C. We discussed in class that cells can produce 30 ATP molecules by aerobically metabolizing a single glucose molecule. Suppose you had a technology that enabled you to harness all cellular ATP production through this pathway to drive your motor. Using the information in (A), at what rate would you need to supply a cell with glucose (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each? Assume that the rotation rate of the motor is directly proportional to ATP hydrolysis.

D. Suppose you need to design the energy-harnessing technology described in C to run in the presence of both moderate concentrations of cyanide compounds and no oxygen, such that lactate is now the main product of glucose metabolism. Now, what would be the necessary glucose supply rate (molecules/sec) to drive 100 motors turning at a rate of 1 rev/sec each?

holy **** man! Is that from Caltech? My goodness that school is hard. And I thought I had it bad...

 

[JackieTreehorn]

Yeah what the hell is that-biophysics or something?