Relationship between MCAT vs. USMLE vs. Real World Success

[ChemEngSoonMD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

One of his central ideas regarding intelligence is there is a relationship between intelligence and real world success up to a point. Beyond this threshold, an increase in intelligence does automatically yield an increase in success.

For example, if you have an IQ of 120, you are probably going to do better than someone with an IQ of 70. However, if you have an IQ of 190, that doesn't mean you are going to automatically be more successful than someone with an IQ of 130 in real life. He claims that this threshold is around 120. One of his comparisons was Chris Langan, an IQ of 195 vs. Albert Einstein, an IQ of 150. One ended up being a club bouncer, the other ended up being a Nobel Prize winner.

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

 

[Aljazera]

Cool story bro.

 

[MossPoh]

A 25? Really? You'd be wrong. I think the threshold for success is actually like 21 or 22 or something.

One of our professor's jobs was to analyze the data over the years while at 2 different medical schools. Out of the people who were accepted, there was no significant statistical correlation between MCAT and USMLE success. Even undergraduate GPA was a very weak correlation to the point it was almost statistically insignificant. If you were curious, he also analyzed how performance in each individual class correlated with eventual success (or failure) and Anatomy was dead last out of the science classes.

If you are good enough to get into medical school then you are good enough to do well on the boards. Hard (and smart) studying are far more important than anything else. I know people that had 24s and got into one brand new DO school. One did slightly above the average and the other DESTROYED the USMLE. I also have a friend that had a 35 on the MCAT who is now concerned with matching in a strong program because of a score that is just barely above passing. Small sample sizes, but saying a 25 has no chance is absolutely absurd.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

how do u measure real world success? Patients satisfied? Money made? Research completed?

 

[Heimerfink]

Couple friends of mine all just took usmle. We all have scores MCAT 36-42 (I think).

It's a crapshoot. Once you're 35+, you're smart enough to do well. It's just a matter of working hard enough to do it and a little bit of luck on test day. Most of us got 250's. We all got 235+.

 

[Heimerfink]

In actuality though, the 2 tests are NOT testing the same thing. Most notably, the verbal section...

 

[Dedikated2liftn]

Not to be a dick, but the Neuro shelf I took awhile back was harder than the MCAT; however, I ended up doing better on the shelf (percentile wise). I feel the big difference between the two aforementioned tests is the nature of the material tested and how I felt about the material. More specifically, I felt that the neuro material was more interesting than some electromagnetism BS tested on the MCAT; as a result, I was more inclined to study smarter and more diligently. So even though I could appreciate the difficulty of the test, I did better because I prepared better (while I've not taken Step I, I would assume that the same could be said for it as well).

In regards to how the MCAT correlates to success as a physician, I'd say that point A (MCAT) and point B (becoming a licensed physician) are so far apart that it would make it very difficult to correlate MCAT performance to success as a physician (not to mention the multitude of variables that exisit between the two points). Additionally, the skillset one needs to do well on the MCAT and the skillset one needs to do well as a physician are radically different. As someone above said, if you did well enough on the MCAT to get an acceptance, then you beat the test and ultimately need to focus on the road ahead.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

A 25? Really? You'd be wrong. I think the threshold for success is actually like 21 or 22 or something.

One of our professor's jobs was to analyze the data over the years while at 2 different medical schools. Out of the people who were accepted, there was no significant statistical correlation between MCAT and USMLE success. Even undergraduate GPA was a very weak correlation to the point it was almost statistically insignificant. If you were curious, he also analyzed how performance in each individual class correlated with eventual success (or failure) and Anatomy was dead last out of the science classes.

If you are good enough to get into medical school then you are good enough to do well on the boards. Hard (and smart) studying are far more important than anything else. I know people that had 24s and got into one brand new DO school. One did slightly above the average and the other DESTROYED the USMLE. I also have a friend that had a 35 on the MCAT who is now concerned with matching in a strong program because of a score that is just barely above passing. Small sample sizes, but saying a 25 has no chance is absolutely absurd.

how do u measure real world success? Patients satisfied? Money made? Research completed?

In actuality though, the 2 tests are NOT testing the same thing. Most notably, the verbal section...

Not to be a dick, but the Neuro shelf I took awhile back was harder than the MCAT; however, I ended up doing better on the shelf (percentile wise). I feel the big difference between the two aforementioned tests is the nature of the material tested and how I felt about the material. More specifically, I felt that the neuro material was more interesting than some electromagnetism BS tested on the MCAT; as a result, I was more inclined to study smarter and more diligently. So even though I could appreciate the difficulty of the test, I did better because I prepared better (while I've not taken Step I, I would assume that the same could be said for it as well).

In regards to how the MCAT correlates to success as a physician, I'd say that point A (MCAT) and point B (becoming a licensed physician) are so far apart that it would make it very difficult to correlate MCAT performance to success as a physician (not to mention the multitude of variables that exisit between the two points). Additionally, the skillset one needs to do well on the MCAT and the skillset one needs to do well as a physician are radically different. As someone above said, if you did well enough on the MCAT to get an acceptance, then you beat the test and ultimately need to focus on the road ahead.

1. I'm not saying MCAT and the USMLE test similar subjects. Just like a person scoring a 1600 on the SAT is more "likely" to do better in college than someone scoring 1100. That doesn't mean college courses = SAT = math + verbal.

2. We are talking about the collective, not specific examples. Just because Yao Ming is tall, doesn't make Chinese people tall. When you look at statistics, you look at the thousands of data points, not the ones that fall two to three standard deviations outside of the mean.

3. An R2 of 1 = perfect correlation. In my opinion an R2 of 0.5+ bears some sort of notable relationship.

4. As far as real world success, all of those examples combined.

 

[Funky]

A 25? Really? You'd be wrong. I think the threshold for success is actually like 21 or 22 or something.

One of our professor's jobs was to analyze the data over the years while at 2 different medical schools. Out of the people who were accepted, there was no significant statistical correlation between MCAT and USMLE success. Even undergraduate GPA was a very weak correlation to the point it was almost statistically insignificant. If you were curious, he also analyzed how performance in each individual class correlated with eventual success (or failure) and Anatomy was dead last out of the science classes.

If you are good enough to get into medical school then you are good enough to do well on the boards. Hard (and smart) studying are far more important than anything else. I know people that had 24s and got into one brand new DO school. One did slightly above the average and the other DESTROYED the USMLE. I also have a friend that had a 35 on the MCAT who is now concerned with matching in a strong program because of a score that is just barely above passing. Small sample sizes, but saying a 25 has no chance is absolutely absurd.

I actually looked at the literature (this is what happens when I wake up too early on a Sunday and I can't go back to sleep) and found a study (Acad Med. 2005 Oct;80(10):910-7) which concluded that the MCAT is a powerful predictor of USMLE scores, especially the Step I. The author suggested that it's because they are both multiple choice exams which are taken under high-pressure situations.

 

[DoctaJay]

I got a 27 on the mcat which isn't amazing, but I killed step I. I am a firm believer that you have a clean slate when you start medical school and that you can truly do better on Step I if you put the work in, which I did. So for those reading this thread, don't feel like you are predestined to be mediocre.

 

[njbmd]

The single biggest factor in doing well on USMLE/MCAT/any other board exam is preparation. Those who prepare well and thoroughly will tend to do better. The problem with all of the analysis is that they don't take individual factors into consideration.For example, it doesn't matter if your IQ is 200, if you fail USMLE (and folks with high IQs DO fail that test), you have failed. You do your damage-control and move on. Failure happens and it isn't school-dependent or grade-dependent but is largely preparation dependent. You can have the highest grades, a high IQ; walk into that test center and choke because your prep didn't take into consideration your mental approach to this exam.

In terms of real world success, a score on USMLE, the MCAT, SATs or whatever test du jour is not a predictor of your entire future. The "yuppie-parent" guilt that sends people into SAT preps, MCAT preps and ultimately USMLE preps to try to "make up for any imagined deficiencies" or " give every advantage that money can buy" still cannot guarantee that little "junior" is going to outshine his/her classmates on these tests or even in life.

In reading most of the posts on this website and others, everyone seems to have:

• USMLE Step I (260-99)
• MCAT (40+)
• IQ (160)
• GPA (4.0)

The applications and score reports that cross my desk (I am on two admissions committees and select candidates for residency), would indicate otherwise than the above. I find it difficult to believe that folks on SDN are the people who only represent the top scorers on standardized exams. Perhaps the folks who don't do so well are reluctant to report or more likely, the folks who don't do as well embellish for "ego-stroking" but scores on standardized tests are just that and fail to take into consideration individual factors.

Does it make sense to prepare? Yes, you need thorough familiarity with these tests and the manner in which they test but the actual test-taking skills are honed over years of study, evaluation and mastery of a knowledge-base.

I see too many folks come in with the idea that if they don't take a prep course, purchase every prep book or jump through any number of expensive "hoops", they are going to ruin their chances for success in medicine or life. This definitely isn't the case. Plenty of those so-called "mediocre" test performers have very satisfying careers and many of those "outstanding" performers are never satisfied. In essence, you get what you get when you get it and you can prepare and do well for these tests on your own without increasing the value of the test prep companies stock.

Bottom line: Prepare folks but your life isn't correlated with your MCAT/USMLE/standardized scores.

 

[GoLakers310]

Bottom line: Prepare folks but your life isn't correlated with your MCAT/USMLE/standardized scores.

👍 Just be happy and enjoy life. Well, it helps too if you are good-looking 😉

 

[medking]

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

One of his central ideas regarding intelligence is there is a relationship between intelligence and real world success up to a point. Beyond this threshold, an increase in intelligence does automatically yield an increase in success.

For example, if you have an IQ of 120, you are probably going to do better than someone with an IQ of 70. However, if you have an IQ of 190, that doesn't mean you are going to automatically be more successful than someone with an IQ of 130 in real life. He claims that this threshold is around 120. One of his comparisons was Chris Langan, an IQ of 195 vs. Albert Einstein, an IQ of 150. One ended up being a club bouncer, the other ended up being a Nobel Prize winner.

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

You are running a huge risk here; success is so subjective.

At the same time, I would assume those that are able to score higher on standardized tests have a better chance at climbing the ladder of society (if that's what you mean by success). Whether it is achieved is a totally different matter.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell...

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

That book is awesome. I think there's a lot of truth to that and it probably applies to medicine.

You're examples are way off, however. The difference between a 38 and a 42 is just a couple questions. This isn't statistically significant... the distribution is pretty random when you're scoring this high. Also, as others pointed out, it's relatively easy for a smart person to score a 25 on the MCAT. The test is horribly designed in terms of being empirically grounded, and selects strongly for fast readers.. it's just not a good predictor of anything. It does predict somewhat for the USMLE, though, and there is data (somewhere) to support this, but the USMLE does not predict success within any one specialty.

 

[physics junkie]

“Although it is always perilous to assume that the future will be like the past, it is at least instructive to find out what the past was like. Experience suggests that for predicting future values, historic data appear to be quite useful with respect to standard deviations, reasonably useful for correlations, and virtually useless for expected returns. For the latter, at least, other approaches are a must.” - William Sharpe

If you don't know who Sharpe is look him up.

 

[han14tra]

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

One of his central ideas regarding intelligence is there is a relationship between intelligence and real world success up to a point. Beyond this threshold, an increase in intelligence does automatically yield an increase in success.

For example, if you have an IQ of 120, you are probably going to do better than someone with an IQ of 70. However, if you have an IQ of 190, that doesn't mean you are going to automatically be more successful than someone with an IQ of 130 in real life. He claims that this threshold is around 120. One of his comparisons was Chris Langan, an IQ of 195 vs. Albert Einstein, an IQ of 150. One ended up being a club bouncer, the other ended up being a Nobel Prize winner.

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

👎. I scored a 25 on the MCAT, matriculated into a school with an average MCAT of 32, and I killed the first anatomy test relative to my peers. Hmmm...How did I get a 100% when some people with a 35+ nearly failed?

 

[ahmedqman]

If you put in the time needed to do well, then you will do well.

 

[a winner is you]

👎. I scored a 25 on the MCAT, matriculated into a school with an average MCAT of 32, and I killed the first anatomy test relative to my peers. Hmmm...How did I get a 100% when some people with a 35+ nearly failed?

I find that hard to believe, seeing as you guys just started school a week ago.

 

[han14tra]

I find that hard to believe, seeing as you guys just started school a week ago.

We are evaluated every Friday during HFD.

 

[Goran]

👎. I scored a 25 on the MCAT, matriculated into a school with an average MCAT of 32, and I killed the first anatomy test relative to my peers. Hmmm...How did I get a 100% when some people with a 35+ nearly failed?

Anatomy relies on memorization. Performance on standardized tests relies more heavily on critical thinking. Success in the real world, so it seems, depends on your ability to interact with colleagues/supervisors. On third year rotations so far, the students with the best evals are not those who know the most, but those who are comfortable manipulating social situations to their advantage.

 

[Tiger26]

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

One of his central ideas regarding intelligence is there is a relationship between intelligence and real world success up to a point. Beyond this threshold, an increase in intelligence does automatically yield an increase in success.

For example, if you have an IQ of 120, you are probably going to do better than someone with an IQ of 70. However, if you have an IQ of 190, that doesn't mean you are going to automatically be more successful than someone with an IQ of 130 in real life. He claims that this threshold is around 120. One of his comparisons was Chris Langan, an IQ of 195 vs. Albert Einstein, an IQ of 150. One ended up being a club bouncer, the other ended up being a Nobel Prize winner.

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

MCAT: 25
USMLE Step 1: 247
3rd year: Honored Surgery and Medicine, HP'ed the rest

 

[dilated]

👎. I scored a 25 on the MCAT, matriculated into a school with an average MCAT of 32, and I killed the first anatomy test relative to my peers. Hmmm...How did I get a 100% when some people with a 35+ nearly failed?

"The MCAT has been proven in large scale studies to correlate with medical school performace. Yet on the first quiz in gross anatomy I outscored people with higher MCATs. EXPLAIN THAT!"

I think I can see why you did better on a test of memorization than logical reasoning.

 

[Deferoxamine]

I think I can see why you did better on a test of memorization than logical reasoning.

 

[riceman04]

"The MCAT has been proven in large scale studies to correlate with medical school performace. Yet on the first quiz in gross anatomy I outscored people with higher MCATs. EXPLAIN THAT!"

I think I can see why you did better on a test of memorization than logical reasoning.

 

[Mattabet]

There's an AMCAS study that put the correlation of MCAT and Step One scores at around .7 or so. I'd find it, but it's August, which correlates with it being hot, which correlates with me feeling lazy. I don't know that Step One scores would be all that indicative of overall success in life, mostly due to really broad and variable definitions.

 

[Cp22kjer]

There's an AMCAS study that put the correlation of MCAT and Step One scores at around .7 or so. I'd find it, but it's August, which correlates with it being hot, which correlates with me feeling lazy. I don't know that Step One scores would be all that indicative of overall success in life, mostly due to really broad and variable definitions.

I saw this too and it was .63 and that was for the BIO section only. The PS and VR were lower. I'm with you.....too lazy to find, but it's out there.

 

[Pollux]

Hmm, interesting discussion. Can only tell you about my performance on the MCAT and USMLE, as I'm not out in the real world YET. Just a few more months to go until I graduate...

My stats:
MCAT - 38 (14P, 14B, 10V)
USMLE Step 1 - 276/99
USMLE Step 2 - 279/99

And someone who beat me on the USMLE Step 1 (bucknuts, who scored 279/99) had an MCAT of 39 (15P, 15B, 9V)

But keep in mind that I studied 300 hours for the MCAT and ~1000 hours for the Step 1...

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

I think the word potential and probability are two different concepts. Someone who scored 20 on MCAT has the "potential" to get a perfect score on the USMLE. You could also say a crack dealing hoodlum from the slums also has the potential to go to college and get a nobel prize. Potential yes, high/equal probability no.

Doing well in the MCAT isn't always just about knowing the subjects, its also a combination of genetics, background knowledge, preparation, hard work, and study habits. These things carry on. Although you can certainly do well in med school with an MCAT score of 25, I would suspect that if you took 100 people with a score of 40 vs 100 people with a score of 25, the 100 people with the score of 40 is going to on average perform better. Thats what statistical correlation means. I think at a certain score, this becomes indistinguishable. I dont think this thread can answer this question unless someone can hack all the MCAT, USMLE scores and doctor salaries/performance reviews and throw it into Excel and plot the data. I don't think personal information/experience is going to give us the big picture.

 

[DrSno]

But keep in mind that I studied 300 hours for the MCAT and ~1000 hours for the Step 1...

😱 That is a ton of studying. I studied about 6-8 hours for the MCAT so hopefully I can get by on about 80-100 for Step 1 later.

 

[confusedliberal]

http://www.grad.umn.edu/admpractices/vol3no2.pdf
"The MCAT is a strong predictor of USMLE
scores."

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...=1999&issue=04000&article=00047&type=abstract
"The results confirm previous findings that increased risk of academic difficulty is associated with low MCAT scores, low science GPA, low undergraduate institutional selectivity, being a woman, being a member of a racial-ethnic underrepresented minority, or being older."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9159589
"Although UGPAs and MCAT scores are good indicators of NBME I performance, they are still not useful in predicting clinical performance, even when the students' data are taken from the same undergraduate institution."


Not sure if the above contributes much to the thread..other than reaffirming the obvious/intuitive fact that the general trend is: higher MCAT = better med school test scores

 

[Cp22kjer]

http://www.grad.umn.edu/admpractices/vol3no2.pdf
"The MCAT is a strong predictor of USMLE
scores."

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...=1999&issue=04000&article=00047&type=abstract
"The results confirm previous findings that increased risk of academic difficulty is associated with low MCAT scores, low science GPA, low undergraduate institutional selectivity, being a woman, being a member of a racial-ethnic underrepresented minority, or being older."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9159589
"Although UGPAs and MCAT scores are good indicators of NBME I performance, they are still not useful in predicting clinical performance, even when the students' data are taken from the same undergraduate institution."


Not sure if the above contributes much to the thread..other than reaffirming the obvious/intuitive fact that the general trend is: higher MCAT = better med school test scores

Thanks! Good info even if a little old.

 

[GatorsWearJorts]

Im not sure you can use the same logic used in looking at IQ scores to MCAT and USMLE. These tests have a lot more to do with preparation than pure intelligence (as a lot of people have stated already).
In this way, the MCAT should be a good predictor of USMLE success- not because the material is similar or that it measures intelligence, but because higher scores are correlated to more time spent preparing (obviously this isnt always the case). The ability and willingness to devote significant time to studying for a test IS correlated to med school and USMLE success.
In other words, I think pre-meds could take a test on the history of Zimbabwe and it would still loosely correlate to med school and USMLE success if it necessitated the same time committment as the MCAT.

 

[sebsvenmdc]

I almost didn't apply to med school because I didn't think my brain was wired for it. I'm a man of faith and thank God for giving me the faith to go for it. I love math...I did engineering in undergrad. It took me a year out of school just to take the extra courses and MCAT...and I never caught up in bio!

MCAT: 31 - P13, 9s in V and B...love math and equations
Classes: Honors in 75%; HP in remaining
Step 1: 255

I'm looking at anesthesiology because I LOVE physiology and pharmacology. I think the shelf exams are an excellent indicator of your success come Step 1 time. I did well on many shelf exams...99 percentile pharm, 96 percentile physio, 98 percentile anatomy, 90 percentile micro, etc...

Most days I wake up and can't believe I'm a freaking med student, let alone one doing well...it just seemed like the least likely option for the 5 years from freshman year of college until the mcat.

 

[lilqu]

I read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.

One of his central ideas regarding intelligence is there is a relationship between intelligence and real world success up to a point. Beyond this threshold, an increase in intelligence does automatically yield an increase in success.

For example, if you have an IQ of 120, you are probably going to do better than someone with an IQ of 70. However, if you have an IQ of 190, that doesn't mean you are going to automatically be more successful than someone with an IQ of 130 in real life. He claims that this threshold is around 120. One of his comparisons was Chris Langan, an IQ of 195 vs. Albert Einstein, an IQ of 150. One ended up being a club bouncer, the other ended up being a Nobel Prize winner.

So I am just curious, what is the trend between MCAT scores vs USMLE scores and real life success. I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world. What about someone who scored 42 on the MCAT vs someone who scored 38? I am inclined to think that at a certain high enough point, the correlation between the MCAT score and real life success will becomes fuzzy.

1) you can't measure IQ - so get rid of this psycho-babble of wanting to predict future success. your job is to work hard to prepare for whatever test you have. understand your weaknesses and work hard to overcome them and you may achieve the grade necessary. there's no such thing as real world success in a field such as medicine as there will always be times of failure and of 'personal' accomplishments whatever it is that you do.

2) " I think obviously if you scored 25 on your MCAT you are not likely to to do well on your USMLE or be successful in real world"
how do you know that? theres no way you can predict this as there may be students that honed their studying skills during med school and passed the usmle with flying colors!?

3) 😕

 

[novastorm]

I think a lot of these type studies are just playing the numbers, much like the odds in vegas. The odds this person is going to study more, prepare more, its not a measure of ability.

 

[turkeyjerky]

"The MCAT has been proven in large scale studies to correlate with medical school performace. Yet on the first quiz in gross anatomy I outscored people with higher MCATs. EXPLAIN THAT!"

I think I can see why you did better on a test of memorization than logical reasoning.

Lol. Classic

 

[45408]

👎. I scored a 25 on the MCAT, matriculated into a school with an average MCAT of 32, and I killed the first anatomy test relative to my peers. Hmmm...How did I get a 100% when some people with a 35+ nearly failed?

People came up to you and said, "I had a 35+ on the MCAT, but I almost failed this test"?

Nobody ever said that any one of these tests was a perfect indicator. I mostly look at them as an indicator of your testing ability, your memory, and your study habits. You probably studied harder for the anatomy test than you did for the MCAT. How is it surprising that you did better?

 

[45408]

MCAT: 25
USMLE Step 1: 247
3rd year: Honored Surgery and Medicine, HP'ed the rest

Posting about it on SDN?


Priceless.

 

[45408]

This space for rent. Double post.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the USMLE is a much better predictor of any future success that the MCAT. I mean, look at who takes the MCAT. You've got some kids with every advantage, going straight throug school as pre-meds, knowing from the beginning that they'd need to take the MCAT. You've also got the divorcee with 3 kids and a full-time job who decided to go back to school. And all other kinds of weird situations.

Once in med school, they playing field is a little more level. Everyone takes the test on pretty much the same schedule, after the same amount of class time, etc.

 

[Tiger26]

Posting about it on SDN?


Priceless.

That's only because you wish your MCAT score was as low as mine, there, big guy🙂

 

[docmartin252]

Here's another book that you can read about statistical studies of crazy things. Steven Levitt is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, and this book takes a look at the success of students that went to undergrad at an ivy league school vs. a second or third tier school. What they ultimately discovered was that success does not boil down to intelligence, but rather inner drive to want to do well. They found success stories from the ivy league schools of course, but they also found plenty of successful people at other undergrad institutions. So to realate back to the OP, I don't really think intelligence has as much to do with MCAT, USMLE, etc... success as much as it does an inner desire to excel.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

Here's another book that you can read about statistical studies of crazy things. Steven Levitt is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, and this book takes a look at the success of students that went to undergrad at an ivy league school vs. a second or third tier school. What they ultimately discovered was that success does not boil down to intelligence, but rather inner drive to want to do well. They found success stories from the ivy league schools of course, but they also found plenty of successful people at other undergrad institutions. So to realate back to the OP, I don't really think intelligence has as much to do with MCAT, USMLE, etc... success as much as it does an inner desire to excel.

I think intelligence does... to a point. A guy with down syndrome won't succeed as med student not matter how hard he tries. A person with 70 IQ wont succeed as a med student either.

What they ultimately discovered was that success does not boil down to intelligence, but rather inner drive to want to do well.

Thats because most (I emphasize the word most) of the students at IVY league schools are already above the intelligence threshold (refer to the first post). Since they are already "smart enough", being any smarter doesn't make much difference. The relationship between intelligence and success is not linear forever. Its linear until a point and then it levels off. In college, haven't you seen some chicks who study all the time, and still don't get F=ma? Well those people are the ones on the steep end of the curve. These people have no hope.

Going back to the people that are smart enough, the only other variable left is hard work. The subset of most ivy league students do not represent the general populous. Most people in college have IQ's of at 110+ and most grad students have IQ's of 120+.

You throw in some random people with IQs of 70 into the same curriculum, you bet your ass that intelligence is going to matter.

 

[VincentAdultman]

This thread is way better when med students post their stats and stroke the ol' e-peen.

 

[45408]

This thread is way better when med students post their stats and stroke the ol' e-peen.

Oh sorry, I've been slacking. I had a 38.4 on the MCAT, and I got a 100% on Step 1. So, moderate relationship there.

 

[surag]

These concerns are meaningless. Even though there are studies that show the MCAT is a good predictor of Step scores I do not believe there is any real correlation between the MCAT and sucecss in life.

What people are forgetting is that the MCAT merely reinforces a students' behavior. Someone who studies incredibly hard to do well on the MCAT will most likely pursue that attitude throughout his career. Will he always? Of course not.

But most likely he will work hard enough for admisisons to medical school and work hard on his steps to ensure a continued path towards his career goals.

The MCAT IS NOT AN IQ TEST. Nor is an IQ test particulary a good predictor of intellectual and career success.

For example, a student with a high MCAT score 37+ statisitically speaking is in the 98=%. If you look at the ACTUAL STATISTICAL DATA RELEASED EVERY YEAR for mcat GPA and admissions correlations you will see that almost 99% of students with MCATs over a 37 have GPAs in the 3.8+ range.

This means that these students are already high acheivers who work hard regularly and will most likely continue this pattern in medical school. Very few medical students drop off their hard working behavior once in medical school. This last statement may have some critics but I'm not going to argue the point. I dont care about some sort of national registry and data analysis to prove this point...its sort of like saying well theres no real actual clinical data that DIRECTLY links smoking to lung cancer. Bull$#!T

Anyway,

What matters the most to the OP and others concerned about their low MCATs or w/e is that its not a predictor of your intelligence nor your future success. The MCAT, while heavily dependant on reasoning is just as depenent on your knowledge base. Without a high knowledge of what you need to know in the exam you will not do well no matter your IQ.

 

[surag]

I'm a bit of an outlier myself...and not in particularly a positive way. If it helps I'll post info about myself:

SAT: 1520(760 each section)
HS GPA: 3.77

High School IQ(8th grade): 136

MCAT: 37 (14 P, 11V, 12 B) S writing

College GPA 2.72.

As you can see, I'm struggling for obvious reasons to get into medical school. Both my standardized testing scores are high, but did not help to show a high GPA potential. In fact, my GPA collapsed as my UG years progressed.

There are a variety of factors that affected my GPA but the most important fact out of this is that none of my scores guaranteed success in college nor in life. I am currently trying hard to gain admission into the 2011 cycle or 2012 cycle. Who knows what will transpire?

 

[surag]

ALso:

High IQ is meaningless. In fact, I think IQ tests are meaningless.

They basically test a few things and all are about your memory. How quickly can you recall information? How quickly can you recognize a pattern? The assumption is that somehow this is related to how quickly your synapses fire and how effecient your neural patterns are.

i question this assumption for real intelligence. the iq exam tests people with high pattern recognition functioning. Hence, someone with a high IQ will most likely be incredibly intelligent in a very narrow sense of the word. Very few people with incredibly high IQs ONLY have contributed significantly to the world in a meaningful manner.

Genius, to me, is entirely different. Einsteins incredible brilliance is a testament to his creative power and out of box thinking as opposed to pure analytical treatment of issues.

Richard Feynman supposedly had an iq of only 128...this FROM HIS OWN QUOTE.

However, there are many others who are supposed to have incredible intellect. Terrence Tao, Ramanujan, jacobi jacobi...etc. and did contribute in unparalleled ways to mathematics(they're all mathematicians).

At the same time, the greatest insights in the world have been mostly by people with incredible creative powers, a high level of intellecutal capacity and an extreme dedication to their work.

Bill gates is thought to be a genius based off his SAT score and SAT score ONLY: 1590. But at the same time he spent hours and hours working on coding that enabled him to sell it and begin his business.

steve jobs barely did well in college, took a technical course in calligraphy and become a billionairre by revolutionizing computing, graphics design, and movie making...go figure.

lawrence ellision never finished college and performed poorly at his state school.

There is scientific acceptance today that chess, once thought to be a strong indicator of high intellect is largely dependent on practice. There are several cases, anecdotal evidence that corroborate this as well as strong scientific analysis based on mri imaging and long term studies of grand masters and amateurs that again corroborrate this.

Why do I know all this? Simple, Neuroscience major.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

II'm struggling for obvious reasons to get into medical school.

That obvious reason is posting 10 page posts on SDN.

 

[45408]

Genius, to me, is entirely different. Einsteins incredible brilliance is a testament to his creative power and out of box thinking as opposed to pure analytical treatment of issues.

Richard Feynman supposedly had an iq of only 128...this FROM HIS OWN QUOTE

That's the 97th percentile. I'd call that pretty intelligent. The people who claim to have an IQ of 160 are probably full of crap, because the incidence is 1 in 31,000.