Push by adcoms for lower MCAT scores?

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

ohioguy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
147
Reaction score
105
Members don't see this ad.
Current MS-IV. Recently matched and have some time on my hands. Was told that our school adcom is making a push to have more "diverse" applicants, putting more emphasis on "personality" with lower emphasis on the MCAT.

I checked the MCAT average and it has indeed gone down from a 36 with my class to a 33 for the incoming. Should be good for applicants I guess. Thought I'd pass this along.
 
Last edited:
This was part of the rationale of changing the scoring on the MCAT. 500 is supposed to be "good enough" to survive medical school and focusing solely on the 520+ applicants is not producing more successful students (if success is measured by passing the boards and finishing med school in 4 or 5 yrs) or better doctors.

As long as GPA and MCAT are factored in to the US News rankings, a subset of the schools will be number ******, holistic review be damned.
 
LoveBeingHuman:) said:
@LizzyM is the new push somehow implying that high stats students tend to not have the personality that a physician should have?
Click to expand...
She said "not producing more successful students" which is not the same as "producing less successful students." Correct me if I'm wrong, @LizzyM, but I believe you're arguing "no significant difference," right?
 
I know what school you're talking about (well, it's in your old posts so...). And I believe it too. I remember thinking that the interviewees were probably the most outgoing I've ever seen.
 
I think that the hope is that with "holistic review" that treats MCAT and GPA as pass/fail and then focusing on other attributes such as life experiences, we might get a more diverse class that will be prepared to meet the health care needs of American society in the 21st century.

In other words, they'd like to be able to take people who will be successful in medical school and be good doctors and serve in communities that are underserved without getting grief for admitting someone with a 505 over someone with a 520 and having the 520 argue that they were "better" and should have been chosen over someone with a lower score.
 
LizzyM said:
I think that the hope is that with "holistic review" that treats MCAT and GPA as pass/fail and then focusing on other attributes such as life experiences, we might get a more diverse class that will be prepared to meet the health care needs of American society in the 21st century.

In other words, they'd like to be able to take people who will be successful in medical school and be good doctors and serve in communities that are underserved without getting grief for admitting someone with a 505 over someone with a 520 and having the 520 argue that they were "better" and should have been chosen over someone with a lower score.
Click to expand...

I also heard it was more of a national push because some in our adcom may or may not be numbers people. I will say that my class has no shortage of "life experiences" and most of us are outgoing and well rounded people.
 
IMO it would help a lot more if med schools were more clear about their expectations.

Is it really fair that you have to read in between the lines to see what their checkboxes are, and even then you're not really sure?

If you know what the expectations are, then you'll know how much time you can devote to doing other things that are more interesting to you personally.
 
Why not just lower the MCATs high score?

Do you honestly believe any school will select less academic students with the current grading system?

If you reduce the MCAT to pass/fail won't individual GPA university bias ruin everlasting?
 
LoveBeingHuman:) said:
Knowing your posting history... I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not
Click to expand...

100% serious. People who are smarter on average will getter better MCAT scores. People who are smarter also are better doctors. If have a disease, I would absolutely positively want the smarter doctor (i.e. the one with the better MCAT) to be the one who treats me.

I am always shocked by the prevailing theory here on SDN that smarter people do better on tests and memorizing things and therefore are more successful every step of the way. That's not to say that are also nicer, have more empathy, or pick up on social clues better, but as far as academics, absolutely.
 
LizzyM said:
This was part of the rationale of changing the scoring on the MCAT. 500 is supposed to be "good enough" to survive medical school and focusing solely on the 520+ applicants is not producing more successful students (if success is measured by passing the boards and finishing med school in 4 or 5 yrs) or better doctors.

As long as GPA and MCAT are factored in to the US News rankings, a subset of the schools will be number ******, holistic review be damned.
Click to expand...

Numbers are the only way to quantitatively and fairly assess applicants. I find that such "holistic review" approaches tend to run under the assumption that numbers (such as a great MCAT score) come from innate ability as opposed to sweat and hard work. And it would be damn annoying if adcoms fail to appreciate the difference between a person who gets a 500 (aka: person with literally no basic scientific knowledge or critical thinking abilities) and one with 517+ (one that worked hard to build scientific knowledge and has the brains to apply them).
 
Last edited:
LoveBeingHuman:) said:
Knowing your posting history... I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not
Click to expand...

I can't tell either. Personally speaking, I think doctors should be evaluated by how well they can crack a joke to a patient. Or perhaps they should be appraised by the number of smiles they give off in a given day; The larger the number, the better the doctor, and the more lives he/she will save! 🙂
 
The problem is that there are no objective criteria by which to judge candidates "holistically." One can, I suppose, devise a metric to assess a candidate's "distance traveled" in overcoming obstacles which may make them perhaps more deserving, but this does not equate to making for better physicians. If these soft parameters are overplayed, in my opinion quality will suffer. To massage your intuitions on the subject, let me suggest that airline pilot recruitment be revamped in an effort to promote equal opportunity and that hard skill sets are no longer the primary basis for acceptance/promotion...would this enhance the quality of aviation? Another problem is the small sample bias inherent in assessing an individual "holistically" based upon a small number of brief interviews. Who says that high stats and soft skills are mutually exclusive?
 
Jalby said:
I do. Absolutely positively without question that on average the smarter people who got better scores on the MCAT will also make better doctors.
Click to expand...
We're talking about a 3 point difference though. That gap is so close, how can you say with confidence that one student was "smarter" than the other? At some point, random chance does come in to play on the MCAT. The person with the 36 could have randomly gotten a question set that they were stronger with than the random question set the person with the 33 received.
 
The one trouble with your argument, which I mostly agree with, is that somebody with a 502 score can handle medical school just as well as somebody with a 517 score.



theBriefing said:
Numbers are the only way to quantitatively and fairly assess applicants. I find that such "holistic review" approaches tend to run under the assumption that numbers (such as a great MCAT score) come from innate ability as opposed to sweat and hard work. And it would be damn annoying if adcoms fail to appreciate the difference between a person who gets a 500 (aka: person with literally no basic scientific knowledge or critical thinking abilities) and one with 517+ (one that worked hard to build scientific knowledge and has the brains to apply them).
Click to expand...
 
bonedoc5576 said:
and that hard skill sets are no longer the primary basis for acceptance/promotion...
Click to expand...

The issue with this is that we aren't talking about all of sudden accepting a ton of people without the skill set. Theoretically the new MCAT is designed to show competence, and anyone with a 500+ has the necessary skill set to be a physician. The correlation between MCAT and Step 1 isn't that strong (moderate at best), and even step 1 isn't really an indicator on how you will perform clinically.

Jalby said:
I do. Absolutely positively without question that on average the smarter people who got better scores on the MCAT will also make better doctors.
Click to expand...

Wrong. By that logic all those docs who got into med school 10 years ago with 28's (the Harvard average was a 33...) are stupid docs compared to the medical students entering now. Comparing a 35 to a 25? Yeah the 35 is probably smarter, but a 33 vs. a 36? Absolutely not, the difference between those scores often is like 3 questions. Maybe the 36 was a physiology major and got an extra passage on hormones. Luck plays a small role at those scores.

theBriefing said:
aka: person with literally no basic scientific knowledge or critical thinking abilities
Click to expand...

That's not true with a 500, now a 490? Yeah probably more accurate.
 
I think numbers are emphasized too much. It would be ridiculous to say they don't mean anything, but I don't think the student body at UCSF with their median 35 MCAT are going to become "worse" physicians than those at Penn with their 38 median. After a point, the numbers don't really matter. I understand if a school wants to attract "a certain kind of student". All I ask is that schools make it abundantly clear what it is they want. If you aren't going to consider anyone with an McAT below 36/518, then just tell us.

I think the conflation between "objective" metrics like MCAT/GPA and student quality doesn't make any sense. Mcat and gpa don't measure everything relevant to being a physician. Obviously other things need to be taken into consideration -- that doesn't mean that holistic admissions is "random" or anything. Likewise, I have met far more high stats "full package" people than I have "4.0 drone" stereotypes and I'm around physicists and chemists most of the time.

To be completely honest, however, I don't think the AAMC will achieve their goal. I understand the drive to get more of the "right people" in medicine, I.e. People who want to work to serve and will go where they are needed most. That isn't going to happen. Until the material conditions of the healthcare system change -- reimbursement schemes, distribution schemes , etc - that won't happen.
 
Lucca said:
After a point, the numbers don't really matter.
Click to expand...

This. Given a hypothetical choice between a 20 and a 23, I would almost always take the 23. If it's between a 33 and a 36 I would use non-MCAT criteria to differentiate the applicants.

The latest MCAT grid shows that 12.5% of 518+/3.8+ applicants did not get in. I have met some of these people. God help them.

If you deemphasize numbers and your accepted pool changes dramatically, all that tells you is that your admissions committee is either too lazy to read past the first page of the applications, or they were previously taking people they didn't really like that much simply because of their scores.
 
Jalby said:
I do. Absolutely positively without question that on average the smarter people who got better scores on the MCAT will also make better doctors.
Click to expand...

Jalby said:
100% serious. People who are smarter on average will getter better MCAT scores. People who are smarter also are better doctors. If have a disease, I would absolutely positively want the smarter doctor (i.e. the one with the better MCAT) to be the one who treats me.

I am always shocked by the prevailing theory here on SDN that smarter people do better on tests and memorizing things and therefore are more successful every step of the way. That's not to say that are also nicer, have more empathy, or pick up on social clues better, but as far as academics, absolutely.
Click to expand...

Wait wouldn't differences in Step 1 scores be a better metric? How do you compare between someone who got a 38 MCAT, 210 Step 1 and someone who got a 27 MCAT, 270 Step 1?
 
bonedoc5576 said:
The problem is that there are no objective criteria by which to judge candidates "holistically." One can, I suppose, devise a metric to assess a candidate's "distance traveled" in overcoming obstacles which may make them perhaps more deserving, but this does not equate to making for better physicians. If these soft parameters are overplayed, in my opinion quality will suffer. To massage your intuitions on the subject, let me suggest that airline pilot recruitment be revamped in an effort to promote equal opportunity and that hard skill sets are no longer the primary basis for acceptance/promotion...would this enhance the quality of aviation? Another problem is the small sample bias inherent in assessing an individual "holistically" based upon a small number of brief interviews. Who says that high stats and soft skills are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

Further, this more "holistic review" is probably brought to you by the same people who are pushing TBL across the country. Sure sounds great, looks nice in the media, cheered by administrations... but likely a bunch of nonsense in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Talking about single applicant scores (36 vs. 33), is not really useful. Yes, an individual's scores can vary a lot, but we are talking about populations here. If you have 200 people whose MCAT average is a 36, I'm comfortable saying they are generally better test takers than the same amount of people who average a 33... The difference is more like 10 questions, not 3.

Also, top schools can afford to select high scores AND do holistic review. The amount of people who score 96%+ (35) on the MCAT is over 4.000 people a year.
 
Last edited:
Jalby said:
100% serious. People who are smarter on average will getter better MCAT scores. People who are smarter also are better doctors. If have a disease, I would absolutely positively want the smarter doctor (i.e. the one with the better MCAT) to be the one who treats me.
Click to expand...

Define "smarter". Is every kind of intelligence needed to be a good physician measured in the MCAT? Is there really a difference between a 510 and a 514 on the MCAT in terms of who is "smarter"? Is there a "smart enough" to succeed after which we can look at other markers of intelligence?

Define "better". If the goal is to have enough primary care providers in big cities and rural areas, should be target the smartest people in the applicant pool regardless of their interest in serving underserved communities as primary care providers? Should we choose the smartest people regardless of their ability to communicate well, demonstrate compassion for those who suffer, and work with integrity as part of a team?
 
bonedoc5576 said:
The problem is that there are no objective criteria by which to judge candidates "holistically." One can, I suppose, devise a metric to assess a candidate's "distance traveled" in overcoming obstacles which may make them perhaps more deserving, but this does not equate to making for better physicians. If these soft parameters are overplayed, in my opinion quality will suffer. To massage your intuitions on the subject, let me suggest that airline pilot recruitment be revamped in an effort to promote equal opportunity and that hard skill sets are no longer the primary basis for acceptance/promotion...would this enhance the quality of aviation? Another problem is the small sample bias inherent in assessing an individual "holistically" based upon a small number of brief interviews. Who says that high stats and soft skills are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

My understanding of holistic review is that the goal isn't to elevate other factors over numbers but rather to not unnecessarily rule out strong candidates because of over emphasis on numbers.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm a nontrad who was never a science major. I had a low section score on my MCAT (biochem). However my other section scores were strong, I had a good cumulative GPA, and I crushed my prerequisites. I also had very strong clinical experience and volunteer experience. Many schools that are more traditionally numbers based may have a threshold score for MCAT subsections and automatically rule out students who score below that on any given section. So I would automatically get rejected at those schools. The school I was accepted at claims they try to look at applicants holistically, and that was to my benefit. I think they looked at me and said "Yes she has a low biochem section score, but on the whole, she is a strong candidate who has demonstrated competency." Also I think they interpreted my biochem score in context. A low biochem score from a non science major who never took a biochem class is different than a low biochem score from someone who was a biochemistry major. I also took additional upper level science courses after applying and sent an update to further demonstrate ability to succeed.
 
coffeemycupoftea said:
My understanding of holistic review is that the goal isn't to elevate other factors over numbers but rather to not unnecessarily rule out strong candidates because of over emphasis on numbers.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm a nontrad who was never a science major. I had a low section score on my MCAT (biochem). However my other section scores were strong, I had a good cumulative GPA, and I crushed my prerequisites. I also had very strong clinical experience and volunteer experience. Many schools that are more traditionally numbers based may have a threshold score for MCAT subsections and automatically rule out students who score below that on any given section. So I would automatically get rejected at those schools. The school I was accepted at claims they try to look at applicants holistically, and that was to my benefit. I think they looked at me and said "Yes she has a low biochem section score, but on the whole, she is a strong candidate who has demonstrated competency." Also I think they interpreted my biochem score in context. A low biochem score from a non science major who never took a biochem class is different than a low biochem score from someone who was a biochemistry major. I also took additional upper level science courses after applying and sent an update to further demonstrate ability to succeed.
Click to expand...

This infers that schools with traditionally high numbers don't look at applicants holistically. Which, having been a student interviewer, is completely not true. They have the choice of accepting sociology majors who traveled the world teaching yoga to underserved teens and also got high biochem scores.
 
ohioguy said:
Further, this more "holistic review" is probably brought to you by the same people who are pushing TBL across the country. Sure sounds great, looks nice in the media, cheered by administrations... but likely a bunch of nonsense in the long run.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

It's mostly a bunch of garbage. But academic administrators eat this **** up.

It's why idiotic ideas like "flipped classrooms" and "POGIL" come into vogue.
 
ohioguy said:
Further, this more "holistic review" is probably brought to you by the same people who are pushing TBL across the country. Sure sounds great, looks nice in the media, cheered by administrations... but likely a bunch of nonsense in the long run.
Click to expand...

God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in our shoes,
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues.
 
I wonder if there's more recent data that correlates board scores to MCAT score, then stratifies it based on an MCAT threshold and pass rate on the boards.

I also don't think that most physicians that practice are academics. It's just not true. Keeping up with new information in your field does not make you an academic. Evaluating future physicians by standards that academics are held to doesn't make the most sense. If you're using those metrics to evaluate MD/PhD applicants then go to town with it.

I have classmates who are absolutely crushing things that didn't get into med school on their first or even second try.

I think the biggest differentiation once you're into medical school is work ethic. I had issues with motivation due to a whole host of issues here and now that **** is together, I'm scrambling to make sure I don't shoot myself in the foot for boards. There's no way to really make up for a modest effort for a year and a half of med school and end up at the same level as you would have if you were plugging at things a little more religiously throughout. It just won't happen for most people.

Then again, my situation isn't the norm, but.... that's what I've found.

I also don't think empathy is realistically a necessity. I actually argued that at an interview once. Like... I really don't give a crap that my standardized patient has a fake health issue. Yay made up crap! But if I can fake the empathy with an SP, I can convince a patient that I care when I feel like total crap after a brutal day or brutal week even if I'm floundering. You have to wear a mask sometimes in this profession. Faking it is more efficient than having it be a part of your personality since it's less likely for ones ego/pride/feelings to get in the way.

Also, I have no idea how I started on this rant... I'm going to go back to studying now because my brain is clearly fired up!
 
In my application experience, it appears each school has an "agenda" on the type of student they want to attract whether that be someone with perfect stats, a strange background, tons of research experience, teaching experience, clinical experience, compassion, etc.

I think it would be in schools best interest to share the type of student they are looking for to attract. Would take a lot of guesswork out of the process
 
If applicants would do something really radical, like, y'know, poke around the school's website, they'd actually have a good chance of finding this information.

For example:
Admissions Requirements - U of U School of Medicine - | University of Utah

bornunderatree said:
In my application experience, it appears each school has an "agenda" on the type of student they want to attract whether that be someone with perfect stats, a strange background, tons of research experience, teaching experience, clinical experience, compassion, etc.

I think it would be in schools best interest to share the type of student they are looking for to attract. Would take a lot of guesswork out of the process
Click to expand...
Trying to assess someone on metrics like you propose is like trying to assess a high schooler vs a college student vs a medical student. These are all very different persons at different times in their lives. I mean really, why don't you throw SAT scores in the mix?

I suppose since numbers are being discussed the hyperacheivers are smelling blood. But the six competencies required by med schools of their students, and by ACGME and AOA of residents, are of six different domains to master, and only one of them is based upon scientific knowledge. The other five are humanistic domains.


Lawper said:
Wait wouldn't differences in Step 1 scores be a better metric? How do you compare between someone who got a 38 MCAT, 210 Step 1 and someone who got a 27 MCAT, 270 Step 1?
Click to expand...

Bingo!
LizzyM said:
Define "smarter". Is every kind of intelligence needed to be a good physician measured in the MCAT? Is there really a difference between a 510 and a 514 on the MCAT in terms of who is "smarter"? Is there a "smart enough" to succeed after which we can look at other markers of intelligence? Define "better". If the goal is to have enough primary care providers in big cities and rural areas, should be target the smartest people in the applicant pool regardless of their interest in serving underserved communities as primary care providers? Should we choose the smartest people regardless of their ability to communicate well, demonstrate compassion for those who suffer, and work with integrity as part of a team?
Click to expand...

LizzyM and I are not administrators. We work for a living. We teach medical students. There is very good data that the flipped classroom improves learning and retention. It sure works with my students.

username456789 said:
Bingo.
It's mostly a bunch of garbage. But academic administrators eat this **** up.
It's why idiotic ideas like "flipped classrooms" and "POGIL" come into vogue.
Click to expand...

See my comments above on required competencies. But I agree when you put on the white coat, you go into character.

ridethecliche said:
I also don't think empathy is realistically a necessity. I actually argued that at an interview once. Like... I really don't give a crap that my standardized patient has a fake health issue. Yay made up crap! But if I can fake the empathy with an SP, I can convince a patient that I care when I feel like total crap after a brutal day or brutal week even if I'm floundering. You have to wear a mask sometimes in this profession. Faking it is more efficient than having it be a part of your personality since it's less likely for ones ego/pride/feelings to get in the way.
Click to expand...
 
Goro said:
Trying to assess someone on metrics like you propose is like trying to assess a high schooler vs a college student vs a medical student. These are all very different persons at different times in their lives. I mean really, why don't you throw SAT scores in the mix?

I suppose since numbers are being discussed the hyperacheivers are smelling blood. But the six competencies required by med schools of their students, and by ACGME and AOA of residents, are of six different domains to master, and only one of them is based upon scientific knowledge. The other five are humanistic domains.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this but I'm trying to understand @Jalby arguments.
 
In case someone was curious like me to google it...

Does the MCAT predict medical school and PGY-1 performance?
Saguil A1, Dong T2, Gingerich RJ3, Swygert K4, LaRochelle JS5, Artino AR Jr6, Cruess DF6, Durning SJ5.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) is a high-stakes test required for entry to most U. S. medical schools; admissions committees use this test to predict future accomplishment. Although there is evidence that the MCAT predicts success on multiple choice-based assessments, there is little information on whether the MCAT predicts clinical-based assessments of undergraduate and graduate medical education performance. This study looked at associations between the MCAT and medical school grade point average (GPA), Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, observed patient care encounters, and residency performance assessments.

METHODS:
This study used data collected as part of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study to determine associations between MCAT scores, USMLE Step 1, Step 2 clinical knowledge and clinical skill, and Step 3 scores, Objective Structured Clinical Examination performance, medical school GPA, and PGY-1 program director (PD) assessment of physician performance for students graduating 2010 and 2011.

RESULTS:
MCAT data were available for all students, and the PGY PD evaluation response rate was 86.2% (N = 340). All permutations of MCAT scores (first, last, highest, average) were weakly associated with GPA, Step 2 clinical knowledge scores, and Step 3 scores. MCAT scores were weakly to moderately associated with Step 1 scores. MCAT scores were not significantly associated with Step 2 clinical skills Integrated Clinical Encounter and Communication and Interpersonal Skills subscores, Objective Structured Clinical Examination performance or PGY-1 PD evaluations.

DISCUSSION:
MCAT scores were weakly to moderately associated with assessments that rely on multiple choice testing. The association is somewhat stronger for assessments occurring earlier in medical school, such as USMLE Step 1. The MCAT was not able to predict assessments relying on direct clinical observation, nor was it able to predict PD assessment of PGY-1 performance.

Reprint & Copyright © 2015 Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.
PMID:25850120
DOI:10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00550
 
Also, from
Cureus. 2016 Sep; 8(9): e769.
Published online 2016 Sep 7. doi: 10.7759/cureus.769
PMCID: PMC5059149
A Predictive Model for USMLE Step 1 Scores
A Predictive Model for USMLE Step 1 Scores



"A surrogate measurement for prior scientific knowledge may be performance on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), particularly on the biological and physical sciences sections. In fact, Julian performed a prospective study of two cohorts of medical school classes to examine the use of undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and MCAT to predict performance in medical school and beyond. He found that the contribution of undergraduate GPA to performance on Step 1 was overtaken by performance on the MCAT, and thus MCAT scores could be used as a surrogate measure of undergraduate performance. He found that there was an overall pattern of better academic performance associated with higher MCAT scores, in all sections of the exam [5]. Further, Veloski, et al. performed a retrospective study on 6,239 students entering medical school over 30 years and correlated MCAT scores, undergraduate GPA, age, and sex to performance on the Step 1 examination. These authors found that for each point increase in the MCAT science score, there was a 4.26-point increase in the Step 1 score [6]. These findings were consistent with other studies, which have demonstrated a correlation of MCAT scores to Step 1 scores [7-8]."



5. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Julian ER. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186610. Acad Med. 2005;80:910–917. [PubMed]
6. Prediction of students' performances on licensing examinations using age, race, sex, undergraduate GPAs, and MCAT scores. Veloski JJ, Callahan CA, Xu G, Hojat M, Nash DB. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11031165. Acad Med. 2000;75:28–30. [PubMed]
7. Does the MCAT predict medical school and PGY-1 performance? Saguil A, Dong T, Gingerich RJ, et al. Mil Med. 2015;180:4–11. [PubMed]
8. Impact of preadmission variables on USMLE step 1 and step 1 performance. Kleshinksi J, Khuder SA, Shapiro JI, Gold JP. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:69–78. [PubMed]
 
LizzyM said:
This was part of the rationale of changing the scoring on the MCAT. 500 is supposed to be "good enough" to survive medical school and focusing solely on the 520+ applicants is not producing more successful students (if success is measured by passing the boards and finishing med school in 4 or 5 yrs) or better doctors.

As long as GPA and MCAT are factored in to the US News rankings, a subset of the schools will be number ******, holistic review be damned.
Click to expand...

Just curious as to what your source is for the 500 being an indicator as to an individual's ability to make it through medical school. Interesting metric.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
In my experience "holistic review" is a code phrase weaponized so admissions administrators can choose students who fit their value judgements. When objective criteria is degraded only the subjective is left, and guess who grades subjective criteria? You would be surprised at how unaware admissions administrators are of their own biases and/or believe they are justified.
 
Alienman52 said:
Just curious as to what your source is for the 500 being an indicator as to an individual's ability to make it through medical school. Interesting metric.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
"The new scores draw attention to the center of the scales and the top half of the distribution to encourage admissions committees to consider applicants with a wider range of scores than they have in the past. On the old exam, the average total score for accepted applicants was 31 and ranged from 3 to 45. Many selection decisions focused on the top third of the old score scale, but research on the old exam suggests that the students who enter medical school with scores at the center of the scale succeed; they graduate in four or five years and pass their licensing exams on the first try (Dunleavy et al. 2013)."

Dunleavy, D.M., Kroopnick, M.H., Dowd, K.W., Searcy, C.A., and Zhao, X. (2013). The predictive validity of the MCAT exam in relation to academic performance through medical school: A national cohort study of 2001–2004 matriculants. Academic Medicine, 88(5), 666–671.

Quoted from https://www.aamc.org/download/434596/data/usingmcatdata2016.pdf
 
There are a few malignant students in my class. Some of them undoubtedly had amazing mcat scores, are at the top of the class, and would like everyone to know it. Some of the other malignant students had "low" mcat scores, "great" life experiences that got them accepted (which they will tell you about), suck at med school, and are just as mean and nasty as the smart kids.

High MCAT scores do not make good doctors. Low MCAT scores do not make nice people. "Great" life experiences are not "great" predictors.
 
intubesteak said:
There are a few malignant students in my class. Some of them undoubtedly had amazing mcat scores, are at the top of the class, and would like everyone to know it. Some of the other malignant students had "low" mcat scores, "great" life experiences that got them accepted (which they will tell you about), suck at med school, and are just as mean and nasty as the smart kids.

High MCAT scores do not make good doctors. Low MCAT scores do not make nice people. "Great" life experiences are not "great" predictors.
Click to expand...

/thread
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
That's not true with a 500, now a 490? Yeah probably more accurate.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I will stick to my argument and note that someone w/ ~50% percentile (500) MCAT score has practically no basic scientific knowledge. Sorry.
 
theBriefing said:
Agree to disagree I will stick to my argument and note that someone w/ ~50% percentile (500) MCAT score has practically no basic scientific knowledge. Sorry.
Click to expand...
If you're accepting people whose highest score was in the 50th percentile or below, you're pretty much saying that the results of the test mean nothing to you IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
do ADCOMS check mcat score breakdown?l
Replies
7
Views
1K
gyngyn
gyngyn
T
App Review by someone with adcom experience
Replies
0
Views
416
terramar
T
C
Would you recommend for lower income pre-meds to still apply?
Replies
12
Views
1K
engenir
E
U
Absolutely crushed by my MCAT retake. URM 3.5 cGPA, 3.4sGPA, 497 MCAT
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
O
  • Question Question
How do top Medical Schools view top MCAT scores
Replies
5
Views
1K
CBass2288
CBass2288
Top