Push by adcoms for lower MCAT scores?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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...
freak7 said:
What about a 132/118/125/125?
Click to expand...

or what about a 118/132/132/118? apparently this person is really good at critical reading and understanding biology research, but is horrible at physics/chemistry (anxiety attack) and psychology/sociology (burnt out)
 
Lawper said:
or what about a 118/132/132/118? apparently this person is really good at critical reading and understanding biology research, but is horrible at physics/chemistry (anxiety attack) and psychology/sociology (burnt out)
Click to expand...
I'm going to chalk it up to a basic misunderstanding of statistics. I think they think that since the mean is 500, that 500 is the "baseline" or "0" since that's what a standard normal distribution's mean is.
 
freak7 said:
I'm going to chalk it up to a basic misunderstanding of statistics.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that you're presenting an outlier case as a way to defend your argument? Are you sure I am the one with the basic misunderstanding of statistics?

freak7 said:
I think they think that since the mean is 500, that 500 is the "baseline" or "0" since that's what a standard normal distribution's mean is.
Click to expand...

What I think is the following: 50% of other applicants had a better score than you, which means that relevant to other applicants, you got an 'F.'
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
Is there a real correlation between MMI performance and clinical performance?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4475262/pdf/JCHIMP-5-27808.pdf
What exactly is this OSCE business?
Click to expand...

OSCEs are pretend patient encounters with an actor/actress where you are tested on clinical skills. I don't think there is a realistic metric for clinical performance, so it would be tough to find a correlation. The USMLE step 2 exam has a clinical skills/OSCE component, but it is pass/fail.
 
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...

Well I think she's trying to say either numbers *or* holistic review, she's saying there should be a push to consider both. Or look for both things. Either can be accepted.
As in, somebody with cookie cutter EC's and high numbers vs somebody with lower number and good experiences, etc.(excuse the typos, I'm on mobile)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Last edited:
theBriefing said:
Is it possible that you're presenting an outlier case as a way to defend your argument? Are you sure I am the one with the basic misunderstanding of statistics?



What I think is the following: 50% of other applicants had a better score than you, which means that relevant to other applicants, you got an 'F.'
Click to expand...


Yes, you do misunderstand. If you look at the new MCAT like a bell curve, the person who scored 500 got a C, not an F.

In medical school, if 50% of the other students had a better score than you on an exam, you don't get an F, you get a "Pass".
 
ace_inhibitor111 said:
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.
Click to expand...

People always try to say there are exceptions and there are. But someone who gets 10 more questions right is in all likelihood always going to score better than the other person no matter the test. And frankly, being a doctor is always the test. Once every month or two I come across something that I am not 100% sure what it is. I have a suspicion it might be a disease that I barely remember. I google the findings, they match up, and bam, guy has a diagnosis. Someone who scored 10 points less than me might remember the disease, but is less likely.
 
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...

You are adding 4-5 different variables. Smarter means they can retain and recall knowledge better than the next person. Those people will have easier times in med school, score better, and remember test questions and diseases better.

That is not to say there is not other qualities that exist in being a good doctor. There are plenty of them. Empathy, ability to pick up on social cues, etc,etc.

But based on knowledge and who is most likely to correctly treat a patient, I will always pick the smarter person who has done better on tests. We test people for a reason.
 
Jalby said:
People always try to say there are exceptions and there are. But someone who gets 10 more questions right is in all likelihood always going to score better than the other person no matter the test. And frankly, being a doctor is always the test. Once every month or two I come across something that I am not 100% sure what it is. I have a suspicion it might be a disease that I barely remember. I google the findings, they match up, and bam, guy has a diagnosis. Someone who scored 10 points less than me might remember the disease, but is less likely.
Click to expand...

They probably don't even remember attending medical school tbh. They probably went to georgetown.
 
Jalby said:
People always try to say there are exceptions and there are. But someone who gets 10 more questions right is in all likelihood always going to score better than the other person no matter the test. And frankly, being a doctor is always the test. Once every month or two I come across something that I am not 100% sure what it is. I have a suspicion it might be a disease that I barely remember. I google the findings, they match up, and bam, guy has a diagnosis. Someone who scored 10 points less than me might remember the disease, but is less likely.
Click to expand...

Is there actually a correlation between mcat/step scores and misdiagnosing patients?
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with population statistics. Assuming the tests haven't changed, what makes you think smarter people are not applying to medical school??? Things change. Radiology has gotten more lucrative and so now all the new docs are smarter than the 20 year old docs. Medicine is getting 50% more applicants. So the people at the best schools will be smarter than the people who graduated from there 10 years ago.

There are exceptions to the rule. People who had a bad day and stuff like that. But I would bet that someone who scores a 36 would beat someone who scores a 33 9/10 times. Sure, they can both handle medical school, but a 36 will have a much easier time.
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
Is there actually a correlation between mcat/step scores and misdiagnosing patients?
Click to expand...

Do you need a double blind study to know that people who are smarter score better on tests and people that are smarter also have a better knowledge base than those who are not???? Is that really required???

It's like people say gravity must be false because there is not a study with a good enough P value to definitely prove something that is blatantly obvious.
 
intubesteak said:
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...

And to be clear, I am not saying there are not other qualities needed to be a great doctor. There are plenty. I am saying that being smart which is tested by the MCAT is an important one.
 
Goro said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, I disagree on this point. They will both pass medical school. But the 517 will have a much easier time. Instead of studying as hard they can volunteer, have a life, date women, do research, and still get Sr AOA.
 
I've been observing medical students, and had access to their med school applications for about 20 years. Seriously, I have not seen a difference in performance in med school between a 33 and a 36. Now between 28 and 33, yes. (the 28 almost always got in because of some "special circumstance" which was not necessarily URM status). And to be clear, I have also seen URM and "connected" applicants with 36+ MCATs.

If we need more primary care docs in rural America, we are not going to get them by choosing 4.0/40s with 2000 hours of research experience as much as it seems that such an applicant should be a shoo-in at any school to which he applies (taking into account preferences for in-state residents at some schools). But, a 3.6/506 might be a much better fit for a slot in the med school in Green Bay Wisconsin that takes only students who are committed to being primary care docs. A holistic review may find the applicant with the lower scores to be "good enough" when all it taken into consideration.

Think of it as the "Brave New World" of med ed.
 
Jalby said:
And to be clear, I am not saying there are not other qualities needed to be a great doctor. There are plenty. I am saying that being smart which is tested by the MCAT is an important one.
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem I was getting at is this trend of hating on smart people. Some will equate (insert high test score) with being a jerk or not being good with patients. I see some of that sentiment in this thread and its HUGE in my class right now. People are bragging about how behind in studying they are, or how close to failing they are, because that's what's en vogue. Its disgusting.
 
LizzyM said:
I've been observing medical students, and had access to their med school applications for about 20 years. Seriously, I have not seen a difference in performance in med school between a 33 and a 36. Now between 28 and 33, yes. (the 28 almost always got in because of some "special circumstance" which was not necessarily URM status). And to be clear, I have also seen URM and "connected" applicants with 36+ MCATs.

If we need more primary care docs in rural America, we are not going to get them by choosing 4.0/40s with 2000 hours of research experience as much as it seems that such an applicant should be a shoo-in at any school to which he applies (taking into account preferences for in-state residents at some schools). But, a 3.6/506 might be a much better fit for a slot in the med school in Green Bay Wisconsin that takes only students who are committed to being primary care docs. A holistic review may find the applicant with the lower scores to be "good enough" when all it taken into consideration.

Think of it as the "Brave New World" of med ed.
Click to expand...

When that 4.0 40's kid says in their app that they want to go into primary care, do you believe them? It seems like a good number of AOA kids end up in peds and family medicine at my school. And some of the better applicants end up doing poorly in med school and go into family medicine as a result. I just think its really tough to predict what students will actually end up going into. Now, if things could get fixed in this country and primary care wasn't such a raw deal, we would have plenty of primary care docs...
 
Jalby said:
See, I disagree on this point. They will both pass medical school. But the 517 will have a much easier time. Instead of studying as hard they can volunteer, have a life, date women, do research, and still get Sr AOA.
Click to expand...
Agree with your idea but you are missing the point. If we define "handling medical school" as graduating within 4 or 5 years and getting matched... then the data would suggest that these differences in scores are not as relevant. I agree that (in general) the smarter you are, the better you score, the easier time you'll have in medical school. But whether it is easy or not isn't the point, it's whether you get through and come out the other end. I know it's silly to argue semantics but in this case, I'd agree with Goro.

I do think you're overgeneralizing. There will be students who do worse on the MCAT who could be mentally better prepared for medical school. Especially if they attend P/F schools that are not as cutthroat or filled with gunners. See LizzyM's 50% comment above. If the push towards a holistic approach is to produce better doctors - then you have to decide what it means to be "better." Does that mean smarter specialists who diagnose more accurately or get better outcomes? Does it mean someone in PC who has better communication skills?
 
Talking the talk is easy.

We do get lots of people at interview who say that want to go do rural/underserved medicine, but if you look at their ECs...you guessed it...nothing that shows that they have walked the walk. I have a few interview questions in my bank that ferrets out people who are sincere about their wants. No, I'm not sharing.

We have some limited data that people who are from rural areas tend to want to go back to them. I also saw this when I was on faculty back in the Midwest at an MD school too.

intubesteak said:
When that 4.0 40's kid says in their app that they want to go into primary care, do you believe them? It seems like a good number of AOA kids end up in peds and family medicine at my school. And some of the better applicants end up doing poorly in med school and go into family medicine as a result. I just think its really tough to predict what students will actually end up going into. Now, if things could get fixed in this country and primary care wasn't such a raw deal, we would have plenty of primary care docs...
Click to expand...
 
intubesteak said:
When that 4.0 40's kid says in their app that they want to go into primary care, do you believe them? It seems like a good number of AOA kids end up in peds and family medicine at my school. And some of the better applicants end up doing poorly in med school and go into family medicine as a result. I just think its really tough to predict what students will actually end up going into. Now, if things could get fixed in this country and primary care wasn't such a raw deal, we would have plenty of primary care docs...
Click to expand...

If a 4.0/40 expresses a desire to go into primary care in a rural area, I'm going to look at what else they've done besides academics. Have they lived in a rural area, volunteered or worked or grown up in a rural area? Are they interested in long term relationships with patients and a broad but not necessarily deep knowledge of medicine (not-specialist in any field but some familiarly with many areas of medicine)? Have they demonstrated that in their volunteerism or work history. If the person says they want to go into rural primary care but they grew up in a upper-middle class suburb outside a big city, did research in a lab all through college, shadowed a dermatologist and a plastic surgeon, and had volunteer experiences in solidly middle class, suburban environments, I'm going to have a hard time seeing such a person walk the talk of primary care in a rural county with a population of 7,000.
 
Goro said:
Talking the talk is easy.

We do get lots of people at interview who say that want to go do rural/underserved medicine, but if you look at their ECs...you guessed it...nothing that shows that they have walked the walk. I have a few interview questions in my bank that ferrets out people who are sincere about their wants. No, I'm not sharing.

We have some limited data that people who are from rural areas tend to want to go back to them. I also saw this when I was on faculty back in the Midwest at an MD school too.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. My hometown is pretty crappy by most standards but I can't wait to go back someday.
 
Jalby said:
It is interesting how some people are equating high scores with not having social skills or empathy. As in the person with a 33 is intrinsically a better person than the 37.
Click to expand...

Because often, people who are that smart tend to be lacking in other areas. Think of it as a way of skills balancing out. I dont think I've met that many super smart people who are sociable. Maybe 3-4 with lacking empathy, etc.
But you're right,correlation does not equal causation.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Jalby said:
It is interesting how some people are equating high scores with not having social skills or empathy. As in the person with a 33 is intrinsically a better person than the 37.
Click to expand...


Not at all but if I have a choice of 10 applicants with a 37 or the option of swapping out one of the 37s for a 33 who brings an otherwise unrepresented experience (race/ethnicity, sexual minority, first generation college student, military veteran) to the class, I've got no problem taking someone with a 33 under the circumstances.
 
Jalby said:
Do you need a double blind study to know that people who are smarter score better on tests and people that are smarter also have a better knowledge base than those who are not???? Is that really required???

It's like people say gravity must be false because there is not a study with a good enough P value to definitely prove something that is blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...
Your prior post was suggesting that someone who scored lower on Step 1 will have less clinical knowledge in their field than someone who scored a few points higher. That's just nonsense. Such a score disparity could easily be attributed to luck and/or low yield material that the lower-scoring person may have not bothered to study.

Also, your gravity analogy is horrible. Experimental physics (even at the grade school level) has been used to validate gravity for eons.
 
mwsapphire said:
Because often, people who are that smart tend to be lacking in other areas. Think of it as a way of skills balancing out. I dont think I've met that many super smart people who are sociable. Maybe 3-4 with lacking empathy, etc.
But you're right,correlation does not equal causation.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

That's not really the situation here though. It doesnt take being an unsociable genius to get a good MCAT score...

Plenty of smart people are nice and and plenty are mean.
 
I don't understand how people can associate good test taking skills to being a good physician? I'll take the guy with the 33 MCAT if he's quick on his feet when he's on the floor or in the midst of a surgery when a complication occurs. What does it matter if you're a great test taker, you crushed MCAT, you crushed Step 1, etc. but if you can't apply that knowledge quickly when *%$^ hits the fan. When i'm your patient on that hospital bed bleeding out because of a complication, you best believe I don't care about your standardized test results.. I care that you can act quickly on your feet, apply your knowledge base clinically / work with your team and SAVE my life.
 
jcorpsmanMD said:
I don't understand how people can associate good test taking skills to being a good physician? I'll take the guy with the 33 MCAT if he's quick on his feet when he's on the floor or in the midst of a surgery when a complication occurs. What does it matter if you're a great test taker, you crushed MCAT, you crushed Step 1, etc. but if you can't apply that knowledge quickly when *%$^ hits the fan. When i'm your patient on that hospital bed bleeding out because of a complication, you best believe I don't care about your standardized test results.. I care that you can act quickly on your feet, apply your knowledge base clinically / work with your team and SAVE my life.
Click to expand...
Jalby's point is that there may be a correlation between the two. Doing well on a test requires staying calm and thinking on your feet, applying knowledge, thinking fast etc.
 
mwsapphire said:
Jalby's point is that there may be a correlation between the two. Doing well on a test requires staying calm and thinking on your feet, applying knowledge, thinking fast etc.
Click to expand...
Taking a test requires you to remain calm, apply knowledge, think fast.. when you are in a nice quiet room, with nobody bothering you. No distractions.. so no, I don't think you can compare the two at all.
 
mwsapphire said:
Because often, people who are that smart tend to be lacking in other areas. Think of it as a way of skills balancing out. I dont think I've met that many super smart people who are sociable. Maybe 3-4 with lacking empathy, etc.
But you're right,correlation does not equal causation.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

I feel like you may be hanging around the wrong people because out of all of the very intelligent and accomplished people I know, only one is someone I would consider lacking empathy. Even then, he's sociable and has friends, and he has become significantly less arrogant as he's matured through college (although no, I don't think I would want him as my doctor).

Threads like this upset me because I agree that many people in these threads seem to simplify the discussion to lower MCAT score = interesting life, good person and higher MCAT score = robot, arrogant, unsympathetic. People are not one-dimensional and it does everyone a disservice to only consider these limit cases. Is it really that surprising that someone who is capable of working hard to succeed in academics is also capable of working hard to succeed in other areas of their life, whether that's leadership, sports, artistic ability, etc.?

Edit: Sorry for the rant, had a bad day.
 
Last edited:
Lawper said:
i was about to respond to this but your avatar knocked me out cold :dead::hungover:
Click to expand...
It's the every so sexy Dr.Adams, from House MD. Thirteen is actually my favorite, but she's overused. Adam is underappreciated.
Unfortunately, I do *not* look like this.
 
jcorpsmanMD said:
Taking a test requires you to remain calm, apply knowledge, think fast.. when you are in a nice quiet room, with nobody bothering you. No distractions.. so no, I don't think you can compare the two at all.
Click to expand...
Well if you can't take a test, then how can you remain calm, apply knowledge, and think fast when you're not in a nice, quiet room.
 
enchantediris said:
I feel like you may be hanging around the wrong people because out of all of the very intelligent and accomplished people I know, only one is someone I would consider lacking empathy. Even then, he's sociable and has friends, and he has become significantly less arrogant as he's matured through college (although no, I don't think I would want him as my doctor).

Threads like this upset me because I agree that many people in these threads seem to simplify the discussion to lower MCAT score = interesting life, good person and higher MCAT score = robot, arrogant, unsympathetic. People are not one-dimensional and it does everyone a disservice to only consider these limit cases. Is it really that surprising that someone who is capable of working hard to succeed in academics is also capable of working hard to succeed in other areas of their life, whether that's leadership, sports, artistic ability, etc.? My MCAT is in the 99th percentile and during college, I have probably spent more time doing work for various volunteering organizations and working as a resident assistant than school work and research. It drives me crazy that I might have a hard time convincing adcoms that I don't have some kind of personality disorder just because I also worked hard to succeed academically.

Edit: Sorry for the rant, had a bad day.
Click to expand...
You won't , if your PS is good.
Sorry to piss you off.
And good for you! Best of luck when you apply. :highfive:
 
Lawper said:
i was about to respond to this but your avatar knocked me out cold :dead::hungover:
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Jalby said:
People always try to say there are exceptions and there are. But someone who gets 10 more questions right is in all likelihood always going to score better than the other person no matter the test. And frankly, being a doctor is always the test. Once every month or two I come across something that I am not 100% sure what it is. I have a suspicion it might be a disease that I barely remember. I google the findings, they match up, and bam, guy has a diagnosis. Someone who scored 10 points less than me might remember the disease, but is less likely.
Click to expand...
Bro I agree. Which is why I make sure to ask my colleagues what their SAT scores were, too. Cant risk having weak links.
 
Lawper said:
still scarier than your previous angry man avatar. you should go back to kittens in a bowl :cat:
Click to expand...
Did you recognize the angry man? ( hint: avatar the last Airbender).He's only my favorite character.
 
Do people just not believe that luck can happen sometimes?
 
mwsapphire said:
Because often, people who are that smart tend to be lacking in other areas. Think of it as a way of skills balancing out. I dont think I've met that many super smart people who are sociable. Maybe 3-4 with lacking empathy, etc.
Click to expand...

Absolutely positively not. This is sooooo wrong. There is no evening out. Life is fair and some people have more skills than others.
 
When all applicants are qualified, none of them are exceptional. Probably why the diversity heuristics that medical school systems had in place in the 1920s to 1930s missed out on talent like Stanley Kaplan and Julius Axelrod. When you hit your quota of top ten Jews, the eleventh and twelfth hit don't resonate the same as the number one Lebanese from the Middle East.
 
LizzyM said:
Not at all but if I have a choice of 10 applicants with a 37 or the option of swapping out one of the 37s for a 33 who brings an otherwise unrepresented experience (race/ethnicity, sexual minority, first generation college student, military veteran) to the class, I've got no problem taking someone with a 33 under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

And I hope you would. We need a wide variety of kinds of doctors out there. My only point is that the 37s will do better on the tests, have more free time in medical school, and probably look more impressive 3-4 years down the road
 
jcorpsmanMD said:
Taking a test requires you to remain calm, apply knowledge, think fast.. when you are in a nice quiet room, with nobody bothering you. No distractions.. so no, I don't think you can compare the two at all.
Click to expand...

I spent 12 months as a trauma intern in a county hospital in the busiest hospital in Phoenix. You could not be more wrong. Taking a test is a stressful event. Doing a trauma where you have to remember everything you are supposed to check in a life or death situation is also a stressful event. The smarter people were the ones who were "good on their feet" because they remembered what they were taught and didn't freeze.
 
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