Push by adcoms for lower MCAT scores?

[Jalby]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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.

Again, this is stereotyping people with a 33 as having more other skills than a 37.

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

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.

Not sure I agree with this.

I know plenty of people who have test anxiety/can't remain calm and knowledgeable in silence. These same people remained calm, cool, and collected listening to Fleetwood Mac during firefights in Afghanistan.

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.

This, however, makes more sense. I think it boils down to what you learn in medical school and beyond and not as much beforehand. This may also be because I scored < 515

 

[Jalby]

Bro I agree. Which is why I make sure to ask my colleagues what their SAT scores were, too. Cant risk having weak links.

I'm glad someone gets me.....

 

[Funny_Current]

What would be REALLY interesting is if they could correlate subsections of the MCAT to future success on USMLEs. Personally, I did exceptionally better on BS and PC and did poorly on VR. Unbalanced score but 30+. That said, to the best of my knowledge the step 1 at least is MC and has nothing remotely similar to VR... thoughts?

Edit grammar

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Sardinia]

What would be REALLY interesting is if they could correlate subsections of the MCAT to future success on USMLEs. Personally, I did exceptionally better on BS and PC and did poorly on VR. Unbalanced score but 30+. That said, to the best of my knowledge the step 1 at least is MC and has nothing remotely similar to VR... thoughts? Edit grammar Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

That would be terrible. We need less standardized tests and more subjective personality assessments in order to make prospective evaluations on how doctors will interact with future patients. As a doctor you aren't going to sit in front of a patient and take a test while they are seizing. Instead you are going to ask them if they are okay and then bring them tea and biscuits when they don't respond to initial tests. Patient interaction is very important. This is why doctors should adopt HCAHPS standards into their daily routine because a happy patient can give positive feedback, whereas a dead patient can't give negative feedback.

 

[Funny_Current]

That would be terrible. We need less standardized tests and more subjective personality assessments in order to make prospective evaluations on how doctors will interact with future patients. As a doctor you aren't going to sit in front of a patient and take a test while they are seizing. Instead you are going to ask them if they are okay and then bring them tea and biscuits when they don't respond to initial tests. Patient interaction is very important. This is why doctors should adopt HCAHPS standards into their daily routine because a happy patient can give positive feedback, whereas a dead patient can't give negative feedback.

I agree with that completely. But I also believe it's important to standardize prospective medical students with an exam. The MCAT has merit at least regarding certain scores and success in medical school. Like others above have said, the higher the score, the more apparent it is that you can synthesize answers from information you aren't familiar with in a short amount of time: this is critical to being a doc


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Jalby]

We need less standardized tests and more subjective personality assessments in order to make prospective evaluations on how doctors will interact with future patients. As a doctor you aren't going to sit in front of a patient and take a test while they are seizing. Instead you are going to ask them if they are okay and then bring them tea and biscuits when they don't respond to initial tests. Patient interaction is very important. This is why doctors should adopt HCAHPS standards into their daily routine because a happy patient can give positive feedback, whereas a dead patient can't give negative feedback.

Noooo.... the doctor will be running through his training to figure out why the patient is seizing and what he should be doing to be sure that there isn't any more damage to the patient. The staff can get them tea and crumpets afterwards.

Again, high test scores does not equal lack of empathy and social skills. Standardized test are a great starting point for how to rank applicants and then you should look at everything else to make a final determination. But the higher the scores on the standardized tests, the better the person will do at all aspects of medicine that require information.

 

[Sardinia]

I agree with that completely. But I also believe it's important to standardize prospective medical students with an exam. The MCAT has merit at least regarding certain scores and success in medical school. Like others above have said, the higher the score, the more apparent it is that you can synthesize answers from information you aren't familiar with in a short amount of time: this is critical to being a doc Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I believe everyone deserves to be a doctor regardless of MCAT score. This is why I believe that more emphasis on diversity will enable my application to shine more because I'm exceptional and have more than the @Med Ed twelve. I believe that allowing administrators more room to make decisions that aren't tied into numerical values will reduce the variance and chance of them deviating from accepting me once they see what I've been through in my life. The people around me have told me I'm the epitome of rugged individualism and that I will become a doctor even though none of them are in healthcare or have any understanding of the actual process.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm pretty sure there are studies establishing a positive relationship between analytical intelligence (so doing well on tests) and emotional intelligence (being able to empathize with others). Such findings would likely shatter the misconception that those who do well on tests are somehow robotic and lack empathy.

 

[Sardinia]

I'm pretty sure there are studies establishing a positive relationship between analytical intelligence (so doing well on tests) and emotional intelligence (being able to empathize with others). Such findings would likely shatter the misconception that those who do well on tests are somehow robotic and lack empathy.

People with substandard social IQ are the last people to be cognizant of it. On that note, I am aware that I come across as brash on the forums. I apologize, the fact that I deleted and remade my account was because I was tired of filtering how I distributed content. When I am given money I behave in an entirely different manner around people. Incentivization is a horrible thing. Honesty is even worse.

 

[Jalby]

I believe everyone deserves to be a doctor regardless of MCAT score.

Good god no. That is how people get killed by doctors. There is a basic minimum competency needed to become a doctor and if you don't hit that, then you should go into something else. Being a doctor is not a god given right.

I remember four people fail out of my medical school (there were more, but that is what I remember). 2 of them had 2 of the four lowest MCAT scores. One of them was the last person let in off the waitlist. The other was middle of the pack.

(When I was on the scholarship committee they accidently sent me my classes undergrad and MCAT score instead of the class below me)

 

[LePepe]

Good god no. That is how people get killed by doctors. There is a basic minimum competency needed to become a doctor and if you don't hit that, then you should go into something else. Being a doctor is not a god given right.

I remember four people fail out of my medical school (there were more, but that is what I remember). 2 of them had 2 of the four lowest MCAT scores. One of them was the last person let in off the waitlist. The other was middle of the pack.

(When I was on the scholarship committee they accidently sent me my classes undergrad and MCAT score instead of the class below me)

Jalby I ****ing love you. You are this forum's call to reason.

 

[P0ke]

The fact that the MCAT barely resembles medical school curriculum doesn't help. Throw out orgo, gen chem, physics, and put in some anatomy, neuro, histology. In my med school career, I haven't used any of the former 3 at all beyond the basics of "this is a hydrogen bond". Definitely haven't seen any circuit calculations in my step 1 studying. If changes like these were made, then the MCAT would be a better predictor of med school success, and higher would definitely mean better. Right now the MCAT is analogous to testing potential sprinters based on their swimming ability... absolutely no correlation between the two.

 

[LePepe]

Throw out orgo, gen chem, physics, and put in some anatomy, neuro, histology.

At that point, why not just have a bachelors of medicine degree like they have in the UK?

I actually think going straight to med school from high school makes more sense, but I know some would disagree.

 

[kjamess]

I'm glad someone gets me.....

Some only took the ACT (which is annoying), but we make due. Every time someone either makes a misdiagnosis/has a substandard differential/gets an answer wrong in morning report, the first variables we rush to look at are high school and college performance...

 

[P0ke]

At that point, why not just have a bachelors of medicine degree like they have in the UK?

I actually think going straight to med school from high school makes more sense, but I know some would disagree.

Undergrad classes don't go as in depth as medical school classes. But having a foundation in similar classes definitely helps, and I'd say would improve success rates. Right now the system promotes students avoiding these more difficult courses as undergrads in order to protect their GPAs, something I find absurd, because they are the most beneficial for transitioning to medical school.

 

[Jalby]

Some only took the ACT (which is annoying), but we make due. Every time someone either makes a misdiagnosis/has a substandard differential/gets an answer wrong in morning report, the first variables we rush to look at are high school and college performance...

Totally. In college we had a friend who swore he was just a bad test taker. After about 3 different courses where he constantly came in last, we realized he was not a bad test taker but he just wasn't as smart. We stopped hanging out with him and started demanding SAT scores from then on. He ended up getting a 27 on the MCAT.

 

[jcorpsmanMD]

Totally. In college we had a friend who swore he was just a bad test taker. After about 3 different courses where he constantly came in last, we realized he was not a bad test taker but he just wasn't as smart. We stopped hanging out with him and started demanding SAT scores from then on. He ended up getting a 27 on the MCAT.

you're being way too easy on your friends. typically, I require a resume + SAT scores + IQ test before I let them in my clique. Raise your requirements, also demand ACT scores because not everybody takes the SAT. Cmon bro.

 

[cactusman]

I believe everyone deserves to be a doctor regardless of MCAT score.

Good god no. That is how people get killed by doctors. There is a basic minimum competency needed to become a doctor and if you don't hit that, then you should go into something else. Being a doctor is not a god given right.

I remember four people fail out of my medical school (there were more, but that is what I remember). 2 of them had 2 of the four lowest MCAT scores. One of them was the last person let in off the waitlist. The other was middle of the pack.

(When I was on the scholarship committee they accidently sent me my classes undergrad and MCAT score instead of the class below me)

Jalby I ****ing love you. You are this forum's call to reason.

@Sardinia 's sarcasm was so obvious and somehow missed by 2 of the most sarcastic users.

I'm going with @Goro on this. Sarcasm does not travel well over electrons.

 

[Med Ed]

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.

The catch is that a 500 is fine if you have a high GPA. Percentile-wise, it's about a 26 on the old scale. If you check out Table 3 (page 44) you will see that the 24-26/3.8-4.0 crowd has the same 4-year graduation rate as the 36-38/3.6-3.8 people.

The bottom line is that a typical medical school should not worry about having a few 26-ers in each class.

 

[Lucca]

What would be REALLY interesting is if they could correlate subsections of the MCAT to future success on USMLEs. Personally, I did exceptionally better on BS and PC and did poorly on VR. Unbalanced score but 30+. That said, to the best of my knowledge the step 1 at least is MC and has nothing remotely similar to VR... thoughts?

Edit grammar

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

They have done this. In fact, I think satori linked some studies on the first page.

Bottom line: bio section moderately correlated with Step 1 and preclinical grades, other sections not so much. Interestingly enough, old Verbal has the highest correlation with clinical performance of the mcat subsections.

I don't think enough time has passed for them to do something like this with the new MCAT. If i had to guess, i would say that the new mcat will be less correlated with Step performance and more correlated with clinical performance in every section since it is less about knowing a ton of discrete information (closer to Step 1) than it is about interpreting data and different type of text (closer to verbal).

Edit: from Satoris post on page 1:
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.

 

[Sardinia]

@Sardinia 's sarcasm was so obvious and somehow missed by 2 of the most sarcastic users. I'm going with @Goro on this. Sarcasm does not travel well over electrons.

In truth, we were both mutually celebrating the art of sardonic misunderstanding. Only the public doesn't understand the art that is created between two sarcastic savants.

 

[LePepe]

@Sardinia 's sarcasm was so obvious and somehow missed by 2 of the most sarcastic users.

I'm going with @Goro on this. Sarcasm does not travel well over electrons.

LMAO you're right he got me

 

[Lucca]

From another paper:
Acad Med. 2005 Oct;80(10):910-7.
Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance.
Julian ER1.
Author information

Results:

Grades were best predicted by a combination of MCAT scores and uGPAs, with MCAT scores providing a substantial increment over uGPAs. MCAT scores were better predictors of USMLE Step scores than were uGPAs, and the combination did little better than MCAT scores alone. The probability of experiencing academic difficulty or distinction tended to vary with MCAT scores. MCAT scores were strong predictors of scores for all three Step examinations, particularly Step 1.

CONCLUSIONS:
MCAT scores almost double the proportion of variance in medical school grades explained by uGPAs, and essentially replace the need for uGPAs in their impressive prediction of Step scores. The MCAT performs well as an indicator of academic preparation for medical school, independent of the school-specific handicaps of uGPAs.

-----

TBH I think it would be better if the following were to happen:

1. Schools independently decide on a pass/fail threshold for GPA since it doesn't really predict anything and is a much more predictor than the MCAT in terms of performance *in* medical school. These should be clearly advertised on a schools website. "3.2 and below need not apply" is enough.

2. Stop grading the mcat on a numerical percentile scale. As long as percentiles exist on a continuum, the 99%ile is going to fare better than the 95%ile no matter how much AAMC begs schools to stop caring so much about numbers. The MCAT should instead be graded on a tiered basis. Some more sophisticated maths would be necessary to figure out how to do this but for example: first you figure out a reasonable threshold for the McATs predictability of Step performance; if a 520 does not do significantly better than a 515 but a 515 does significantly better than a 510 then some threshold in between 510 and 515 should be chosen as a threshold. E.g 500-510 = A; 510-514 = AA, 515-520 = AAA; 521-528 = S. While schools will still clamor to fill their classes with the highest possible scorers, the small differences between nearby percentiles are erased (which is, in my opinion, the larger issue at hand). If people are borderline scorers (514, 520 etc) their score report should include a confidence interval like... 95% Confidence: AAA-AAA-S. Like for GPAs, MCAT thresholds for schools should be clearly advertised on the school website and the integrity of the information should be verifiable with the MSAR. "We will only consider applicants with AA mcat scores and above" for example.

3. All interviews should be a combination of MMI and personal interviews. The MMI correlates better with standardized clinical performance than either personal interviews or the MCAT. This is surprising but makes some intuitive sense given that it measures one's ability to reason given little (or conflicting) information and a short time to respond.

4. Like I said earlier, cap on the total number of possible applications. People shouldn't be applying to 30-40 schools. 15 is a reasonable cap. Decreasing the total number of applications does something in the ways of reducing the advantage some gain by simply throwing money at the application cycle, it decreases the app burden on medical schools because schools have to be more carefully chosen. Some superstars hold like 5-10 acceptances by the end of the cycle. This phenomenon is even worse in the MD/PhD cycle where if you read the posts following the cycle most accepted students hold 3-5 acceptances while 50% of all eventual MD/PhD students sit on 0 or on the waitlist. This is not good for students, waitlisted applicants, or the schools. This also discourages people from coming up with terrible school lists like "only the top 20 plus my state schools and I have a LizzyM <70". Forcing people to think more carefully about their application choices will improve the experience for everyone involved, secondary revenue be damned.

 

[Promethean]

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!

This only works if you are taking care of someone with a similar insensitivity / lack of true empathy.

Those of us who don't need to fake it can tell when you are just putting on a mask. And I'd say that the majority of those who can't consistently identify when they are getting fake compassion can still 100% tell when they are on the receiving end of the genuine article.

Sure, you can *get by* on insincerity, but only because you can't appreciate how much better your experience would be if you were even a little emotionally invested in connecting with your patients.

I only mention this because I do not ascribe to the theory that compassion cannot be taught or learned. It is a skill like any other. It only requires the thought experiment of imagining what it would be like to be in the other person's position. If you begin to do it consciously, it becomes an unconscious habit, just as it is with all the people who seem to be "naturally" compassionate. It is just that they stumbled upon the habit much earlier in life and found it beneficial enough to continue.

I am sorry to hear that you've found that having feelings is inefficient. I do hope you will reconsider that. I wish I could convey how much you are likely missing out on.

 

[mwsapphire]

I don't think anybody saying you should be a doctor if you have a 489 MCAT score. I think they're just saying going nuts over the difference between a 517 and a 521 is a bit nuts. Especially if they both have amazing BCPM GPA's. Like, once somebody has a 517 or higher ( I'm just making a random cutoff to illustrate my point) , you should look at EC's, personal statement, etc. Were would you define minimum competency?
2 of them had 2 of the four lowest MCAT scores? That's an equal number of those four people with the lowest scores staying in med school.
I thought MCAT correlated with step and GPA correlated with success in med school via studying and keeping up with the material?
I think somebody important said that one here.

 

[mwsapphire]

Absolutely positively not. This is sooooo wrong. There is no evening out. Life is fair and some people have more skills than others.

I think you meant to say life " isn't" fair.

That would be terrible. We need less standardized tests and more subjective personality assessments in order to make prospective evaluations on how doctors will interact with future patients. As a doctor you aren't going to sit in front of a patient and take a test while they are seizing. Instead you are going to ask them if they are okay and then bring them tea and biscuits when they don't respond to initial tests. Patient interaction is very important. This is why doctors should adopt HCAHPS standards into their daily routine because a happy patient can give positive feedback, whereas a dead patient can't give negative feedback.

🤣

 

[ridethecliche]

This only works if you are taking care of someone with a similar insensitivity / lack of true empathy.

Those of us who don't need to fake it can tell when you are just putting on a mask. And I'd say that the majority of those who can't consistently identify when they are getting fake compassion can still 100% tell when they are on the receiving end of the genuine article.

Sure, you can *get by* on insincerity, but only because you can't appreciate how much better your experience would be if you were even a little emotionally invested in connecting with your patients.

I only mention this because I do not ascribe to the theory that compassion cannot be taught or learned. It is a skill like any other. It only requires the thought experiment of imagining what it would be like to be in the other person's position. If you begin to do it consciously, it becomes an unconscious habit, just as it is with all the people who seem to be "naturally" compassionate. It is just that they stumbled upon the habit much earlier in life and found it beneficial enough to continue.

I am sorry to hear that you've found that having feelings is inefficient. I do hope you will reconsider that. I wish I could convey how much you are likely missing out on.

I never said any of what you are insinuating, so you might want to get off your high horse. I never said that I don't feel empathy, just that it is not necessary. I also never said anything about being insensitive, but merely suggested that you have to learn to bull**** it.

And I guarantee that you will not be able to tell the difference because I have worked with attendings, fellows, and residents who wiped the smile off their face and said how annoying a patient was because they droned on about crap that didn't matter. When I went in to talk to the patient (this is when I did research), the first thing they said is how awesome their doctor was and how they'd gladly participate in a study.

You're deluding yourself if you think that you can tell the difference. There's a difference between reality and naivety and I'm merely advocating for the former. Point being that you need to learn to fake it. If you're one of those rose colored glasses folks that legitimately cares so much about every little thing that Mrs. Johnson is telling you and want to listen to her talk about her kids for an hour, then by all means go for it. I'd probably find you insufferable though.

But feel free to keep at it from your high horse.

 

[ohioguy]

Noooo.... the doctor will be running through his training to figure out why the patient is seizing and what he should be doing to be sure that there isn't any more damage to the patient. The staff can get them tea and crumpets afterwards.

Again, high test scores does not equal lack of empathy and social skills. Standardized test are a great starting point for how to rank applicants and then you should look at everything else to make a final determination. But the higher the scores on the standardized tests, the better the person will do at all aspects of medicine that require information.

That and I sense some element of entitlement on this thread. Say an applicant doesn't do well on the MCAT. He gets a 28. oh boo hoo Does he cry himself to sleep and hope that a school with a "holistic review" accepts him? Or does he bust his ass and go for a higher score? As a former re-applicant I chose the latter. I think the MCAT is as much smarts as it is coming up with a plan, sticking to it...things that are important in med school and things that are de-emphasized if we choose to lower MCAT standards.

 

[mwsapphire]

@Jalby
Do you think GPA is important in assessing smarts/analytical thinking/critical thinking, etc.
?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[freak7]

Am I the only one who thinks that @Jalby 's definition of "smart" is different from the definition that others are using in this thread? I don't think either are necessarily wrong, I just think we're arguing for no reason because we're not understanding each other.

@Jalby are you defining "smart" as finite intelligence at the time of assesment? I think everyone else is defining "smart" as overall capability to understand, not the current state of intelligence. If we assume two clones take the MCAT, one studies and the other one doesn't, by @Jalby 's definition, the studied clone would be "smarter" but by everyone else's definition they'd both still be the same "smartness".

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Med Ed]

...things that are important in med school and things that are de-emphasized if we choose to lower MCAT standards.

The average MCAT score for matriculants remains above the 80th percentile. There has been no flood of low-MCAT people into the system. The AAMC has not been pushing holistic review for years because everyone openly embraced it and started populating their classes with 24's. Quite the opposite.

I invite you to take a clinician-educator role someday and try to land a spot on an admission committee, if you have not already served on one as a student. It may be an eye-opening experience for you.

 

[mwsapphire]

Totally. In college we had a friend who swore he was just a bad test taker. After about 3 different courses where he constantly came in last, we realized he was not a bad test taker but he just wasn't as smart. We stopped hanging out with him and started demanding SAT scores from then on. He ended up getting a 27 on the MCAT.

Is it bad that I can't tell how much of that is a joke ( judging by his usual posts)?
****ing hilarious though
Sounds like somebody I was friends with, before cutting things off

 

[Jalby]

Am I the only one who thinks that @Jalby 's definition of "smart" is different from the definition that others are using in this thread? I don't think either are necessarily wrong, I just think we're arguing for no reason because we're not understanding each other.

@Jalby are you defining "smart" as finite intelligence at the time of assesment? I think everyone else is defining "smart" as overall capability to understand, not the current state of intelligence. If we assume two clones take the MCAT, one studies and the other one doesn't, by @Jalby 's definition, the studied clone would be "smarter" but by everyone else's definition they'd both still be the same "smartness".

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

You act like intelligence is something that has wild swings. Or that the only reason one person scores less than the other is because they studies less or had some difficulty that day. It goes back to my story about the person who said they were a bad test taker but turned out not to be smart.

If you do good on one type of standardized test (in similar subjects, of crouse), you in all likelihood will do good in other standardized tests. I'm shocked that some people need a double blind study or some research paper to prove to them that there is a correlation between scores on SAT vs scores on MCAT vs scores on USMLE versus how much a person can retain and process knowledge (Disclaimer, there probably is differences in the science portion and verbal portion of th tests. Different parts of the brain)

And what I am more surprised about is if people cannot find a study, they think the converse is true. The only reason that studies have not shown a high enough correlation is because they don't have enough of a sample size. On average, smarter people will score better across the tests and continue to do so.

And the difference between a 33 and a 36 is 91 percentile and 97 percentile. And this is at the end of the bell shaped curve. They are not really that close. If you have a 200 person med school that accepts only 80 percentile and above, that means one person is 90th in their class and the other person is 30th.

 

[Jalby]

I don't think anybody saying you should be a doctor if you have a 489 MCAT score. I think they're just saying going nuts over the difference between a 517 and a 521 is a bit nuts.

I love it how you changed the 33 vs 36 to a 517 to 521. That's a big difference between the two comparisons. The thing about pre-meds is that anybody can claim to be one in college, but not everybody actually can become a medical student.

 

[mwsapphire]

What about correlations between the ACT/SAT and MCAT by subsection?
I remember my ACT composite was a dismal, but my Math was above the 95th percentile and my Science was lower 90's. But it was my terrible english score that was dragging the whole thing down.
So somebody like me, even if I actually prepare for the MCAT, can have an awesome Physics and Chem/Bio score , but I'm damned to a low CARS and Psych/Soci?
EDIT: As for your last post, sorry, I don't have the old/new percentiles straight in my head.
Double Edit: I'm not trying to be aggressive , I'm legit curious.

 

[Jalby]

@Jalby
Do you think GPA is important in assessing smarts/analytical thinking/critical thinking, etc.

Not compared to the MCAT. The MCAT is standard for all people. At UCLA you could get a MUCH high GPA but taking easier courses and majors than other people. And there are other schools that give more A's than others. So GPA really is only usefull in comparing students with similar majors and similar schools or as a broad thing.

If I was an adcom for a 100 person school that required 250 acceptances to fill, I would rank everybody by MCAT and work my way down to applicant 500. Anybody below 500 is automatically rejected. First 150 applicants without red flags gets accepted. Any impressive things from 151 to 500 gets accepted. Then filter it out from there.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

The only reason that studies have not shown a high enough correlation is because they don't have enough of a sample size.

Lol... or they have and the correlation isn't as high as you are trying to make it out to be. Every study shows little correlation to clinical skills (as cited above) and a moderate correlation to Step 1 (again, cited above). That's it. We actually have the data, it's right there.

You act like intelligence is something that has wild swings. Or that the only reason one person scores less than the other is because they studies less or had some difficulty that day. It goes back to my story about the person who said they were a bad test taker but turned out not to be smart.

But the way you are describing it does have swings. How do you account for people who go from a 502 to a 517? Did they all of a sudden have this huge boost in intelligence on their retake? No, they probably just studied better. The thing about the MCAT is that it is generally a one shot one kill type deal, it doesn't matter how smart you are if you are unprepared to take the test. The guy who studied for it will probably score higher than the guy with above average intelligence (how do you even define this honestly) who just takes it cold. Yeah if you take it 5 times and can't break 500 then yeah you probably just aren't that smart.

 

[Jalby]

Lol... or they have and the correlation isn't as high as you are trying to make it out to be. Every study shows little correlation to clinical skills (as cited above) and a moderate correlation to Step 1 (again, cited above). That's it. We actually have the data, it's right there.

You are one of the leaders in the theory that if someone doesn't do well in one test than suddenly for some strange reason they will do better on a different but very similar test.

 

[mwsapphire]

You are one of the leaders in the theory that if someone doesn't do well in one test than suddenly for some strange reason they will do better on a different but very similar test.

How do you explain somebody taking the MCAT cold, scoring like, a 501, then studying and scoring a 516?
What was the reason there?

 

[Med Ed]

If I was an adcom for a 100 person school that required 250 acceptances to fill, I would rank everybody by MCAT and work my way down to applicant 500. Anybody below 500 is automatically rejected. First 150 applicants without red flags gets accepted. Any impressive things from 151 to 500 gets accepted. Then filter it out from there.

What applicant populations would you define as value-added, and how would you go about recruiting them given your strategy?

 

[Jalby]

What applicant populations would you define as value-added, and how would you go about recruiting them given your strategy?

That takes to much time to type out and way to hypothetical.

 

[Jalby]

How do you explain somebody taking the MCAT cold, scoring like, a 501, then studying and scoring a 516?
What was the reason there?

Please stop replying to my posts. It literally gives me headaches. I try to be nice and gentle with you, but I'll be honest, that wont last long. See bolded part of your statement.

 

[Med Ed]

That takes to much time to type out and way to hypothetical.

Tell that to the LCME.

 

[Sardinia]

Stick them all in a steel cage and have them fight each other to the death. The last ones standing are obviously the most fit. I heard that it's all the rage in schools overseas. There is even a popular children's book that was adapted into a movie. Wait. I'm confusing education with the survival genre.

 

[mwsapphire]

Hunger games

 

[DrHart]

First 150 applicants without red flags gets accepted. Any impressive things from 151 to 500 gets accepted. Then filter it out from there.

This invites a lack of diversity in my opinion. Obviously a hypothetical scenario, but I would bet this lack of diversity is what created the push for a holistic approach in the first place.

 

[throk]

Some responses to various parts of thread:

yes there is a difference in how well various sections of MCAT correlate to step 1 score

Two big assumptions so far in the thread are that higher MCAT scores generally = smarter and that higher MCAT scores generally = sacrificing intangibles. +1 to the former, -1 to the latter. Students at top 10-20 interviews were not a bunch of uninteresting socially inept geeks, there is nothing that reveals that they have high MCATs in a conversation

People always talk about how a high 20s MCAT predicts graduating just as well as a high 30s MCAT. True but maybe missing what admissions is looking for at schools that favor the latter. They aren't just looking for interesting people that will successfully become doctors, but doctors that will tend to go into competitive specialty residencies at academic centers and have a different kind of career

 

[Sardinia]

This invites a lack of diversity in my opinion. Obviously a hypothetical scenario, but I would bet this lack of diversity is what created the push for a holistic approach in the first place.

I think your reliance on the word diversity shows a lack of diversity. I heard about the holistic approach. It involves staring at several pieces of paper and having one interview. It is a very holistic assessment of evaluating all the diversity a candidate has to offer.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

You are one of the leaders in the theory that if someone doesn't do well in one test than suddenly for some strange reason they will do better on a different but very similar test.

Did I ever say that? No, I am one of the leaders for looking at actual data, you just don't like that I question your opinion or statements. Your arguments are very inconsistent and you constantly try to change the mark when someone questions your flawed logic.