Relationship between MCAT vs. USMLE vs. Real World Success

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Einstein's IQ was 150. Hes already very smart. So yeah, when you have IQ of 150, then other things matter like creativity. If Einstein had an IQ of 80, he would not have gotten the Nobel Prize no matter how creative he was. You keep saying intelligence didn't matter for him, but 8th grade statistics would tell you that the standard deviation for IQ is 15, and that he is already 3 standard deviations above the mean. Thats what, 99.8% higher than the general populous. So yes, hes already damn smart.
 
Where do you take an IQ test like WAIS or the Stanford-Binet?
 
Einstein's IQ was 150. Hes already very smart. So yeah, when you have IQ of 150, then other things matter like creativity. If Einstein had an IQ of 80, he would not have gotten the Nobel Prize no matter how creative he was. You keep saying intelligence didn't matter for him, but 8th grade statistics would tell you that the standard deviation for IQ is 15, and that he is already 3 standard deviations above the mean. Thats what, 99.8% higher than the general populous. So yes, hes already damn smart.


I dont know if this is a testament to how ignorant you are on the subject matter or if you're some sort of 15 year old kid whos desperately trying to sound intelligent?

There is no point comparing einstein to regular people. But in his field, wherein people of 'higher' IQ existed...even they could not dream up what he did. It makes almost no sense in trying to argue or disprove what I say by bringing up regular peoples IQs.

I.E... Neihls Bohrs mathematical talent was so great that very few people bothered to even argue with him because of his intellect. It was widely agreed that his intelligence as well as freeman dyson's intellect were of the greatest during that time. The same can be said of other great scientists whos names represent principles and theories you've no doubt studied...

max plank, neihls bohr, heisenberg, etc. All of these men have been thought to have superior and better developed mathematical and intellectual capacities compared to einstein...

yet einstein prevailed in developing an entirely new theory that split from the scientific community during his time with 'only' an IQ of 150 when others had higher intellect. That was the point I was making. That creativity is more important than intelligence alone.

On a more RELEVANT note... IQ has absolutely no correlation with success in life for a variety of reasons. The fact is, IQ wont dictate your chance of succeeding, in whatever measures you use, money, Nobel Prize, etc.

The average IQ of Nobel Laureates in the sciences/economics is "only" AND I emphasize the quotes because its still very high, 150.

Before you misconstrue what I said, dont get me wrong...I think its exceedinlgy important to succeed say in physics or mathematics one must have an exceedingly high intellectual capacity, but that alone will not get you far.

For every Terrence Tau or Ramanujan, there's an intellectual genius who amounts to absolutely nothing even when he dedicates his life to some subject.
 
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.

Medicine has absolutely nothing to do with pattern recognition.
 
I dont know if this is a testament to how ignorant you are on the subject matter or if you're some sort of 15 year old kid whos desperately trying to sound intelligent?

There is no point comparing einstein to regular people. But in his field, wherein people of 'higher' IQ existed...even they could not dream up what he did. It makes almost no sense in trying to argue or disprove what I say by bringing up regular peoples IQs.


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.

Welcome to Reading Comp 101. Let me guess, verbal wasn't your forte on the MCAT. Age 15 with a degree in Chemical Engineering? Damn, I'm the next Doogie Howser.
 
Medicine has absolutely nothing to do with pattern recognition.

Actually medicine is based on pattern recognition. Cancer findings, heart diseases, and things like sickle cell are all based off of patterns. In addition, all current research is based on patterns, which is pivotal to the advancement of medicine. Although medicine isn't a daily IQ test, being able to recognize a pattern can be rather important as a physician.

Something else that nobody has brought up, is the fact that many believe that Einstein was autistic, specifically with aspergers. Many studies have been conducted that show people with aspergers excel in mathmatics becuase it is very analytical. However, they have trouble with social situations because they are unable to interprit people's facial/bodily expressions because it is not as cut and dry as mathmatics. These people also rely on pattern recognition as well as established rules to follow to achieve an objective.
 
Medicine has absolutely nothing to do with pattern recognition.
Um, I couldn't disagree more. If you're a dermatologist, it's almost entirely about pattern recognition. If you're in IM, and a patient comes in with hypercalcemia, renal failure, and anemia, you're going to think "Hmmm, multiple myeloma."
 
Something else that nobody has brought up, is the fact that many believe that Einstein was autistic, specifically with aspergers. Many studies have been conducted that show people with aspergers excel in mathmatics becuase it is very analytical. However, they have trouble with social situations because they are unable to interprit people's facial/bodily expressions because it is not as cut and dry as mathmatics. These people also rely on pattern recognition as well as established rules to follow to achieve an objective.


Einstein couldn't have been that socially awkward. I know for a fact he was a player and had many gfs.
 
Einstein couldn't have been that socially awkward. I know for a fact he was a player and had many gfs.

Sorry, didn't know you two were close like that. Anyone who is rich, world famous, or a combination will be able to get "many gfs." I bet Warren Buffett could walk down the street right now and pick up pretty much any girl he wanted, and not because he has a great personality or because he looks young for a 78 year old.
 
Sorry, didn't know you two were close like that. Anyone who is rich, world famous, or a combination will be able to get "many gfs." I bet Warren Buffett could walk down the street right now and pick up pretty much any girl he wanted, and not because he has a great personality or because he looks young for a 78 year old.

Oh really? Nice limiting belief there. I put 1000 bucks in your pocket, you pick up a girl at a club right now. Money does not translate success with girls. FYI.

Furthermore, back in the day, Einstein was neither rich nor famous.
 
Money does not translate success with girls. FYI.

Furthermore, back in the day, Einstein was neither rich nor famous.

Money may not translate success with all girls, but you can probably get a pretty good flock on your side if you've got a good amount in your pocket. I've seen complete d-bags get hot girls just because the girl thought they had money.

I'll give you that Einstein probably wasn't rich during his day, however I'm sure that he was plenty famous. In any event here's an article I found about his possible asperger's amonst others: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2988647.stm
 
What is interesting to me is how quickly people with well-above-average IQs can take an interesting and insightful conversation topic and turn it into a disjointed flame-fest.

I love SDN.
 
What is interesting to me is how quickly people with well-above-average IQs can take an interesting and insightful conversation topic and turn it into a disjointed flame-fest.

I love SDN.

Well, nobody could provide any data to justify any of their conclusions so this thread was derailed for entertainment purposes.
 
It's pretty well documented that Einstein had legit game.

The Game, was really written by Albert Einstein which used Neil Strauss as a pen name.

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

There's no way in hell the threshold is at 21/22. You would have to miss more than half the test to get a score like that on the MCAT.

The threshold is probably half a deviation or so above the mean of all test takers, so around a 28.
 
The threshold is probably half a deviation or so above the mean of all test takers, so around a 28.
That'd be a 25-26, actually. It's hard to deny the successes of DO students. There are tons of them with less than a 26, and they're still going to make fine doctors.
 
womp said:
The threshold is probably half a deviation or so above the mean of all test takers, so around a 28.
That'd be a 25-26, actually. It's hard to deny the successes of DO students. There are tons of them with less than a 26, and they're still going to make fine doctors.

No... the mean in 2008 for all MCAT test takers was 24.9 and the standard deviation was 6.4. Thus the mean plus half a deviation is 28.1. The percentile for getting a 21 on the MCAT is a pathetic 24-28%, hardly a threshold for great success.

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/admissionsadvisors/examstatistics/scaledscores/combined08.pdf
 
I realize this is way late, but just so we don't leave this thing with factually incorrect statements left unchallenged.

Nobody knows the IQs of Nobel Laureates. However, this guy's guess of 144 or so is probably not too wrong. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dialogue.htm

Next, nobody knows Einstein's IQ. Catherine Cox, of the 300 geniuses fame, was asked to estimate it for Time-Life Books in the early sixties, she gave an answer of 'in the low 160's.

Over most of its range, IQ has a statistically significant positive correlation with mental health, educational attainment, lifetime earnings, stability of marriage, assessments of leadership ability, etc. It is negatively correlated with addiction and incarceration rates. In other words, though not perfect, from 70 - 130 it is a valuable measure of likely success in life.

The greatest probability of entering an elite profession such as doctor, professor, executive, etc. is at IQ 133. By 140, the relative probability has fallen by 32%. By 150 it has fallen by 99%. So, if your life objective is to become a physician, take your 130 - 140 IQ and be happy. Any more would be detrimental to your chances for success.

Michael Ferguson
 
I love these SDN piss-fests where some pre-med goes on and on about the importance of the MCAT. If you're shallow enough to think that standardized exams actually have any influence on the things in life that truly matter, by which I mean your family and friends, I pity the vacuous existence that will be your time on earth. As those of use who have taken these exams can attest, you take the test, you get your score, you move on through whatever doors it opens and you don't look back. Do I think about my SAT? never. Do I think about my MCAT? no. USMLE? only insofar as I consider the options available because of my score.
 
Several people have posted that the SDN statistics don't seem to correlate with real life, as there's a bias for people to either BS or to post only if they're in a certain range.

So, I'll be the first to admit here that I'm pretty sure my IQ isn't above 160 and I didn't get above a 40 on the MCAT or a 260 on step 1.
😛
 
1. No evidence to back this up, but several PDs have told me acing Step 1 is key, because programs have come to know, through experience, that the people who scored high on Step 1 won't fail specialty boards. Programs don't like their residents to fail their boards after the program puts years of time and energy into these young physicians.

So not true "real world success," but you gotta keep taking tests throughout your career. There is research to show that the MCAT (and undergrad GPA) correlates to Step 1 performance, but most med students who have taken Step 1 would agree that the MCAT is harder to study your way to a high score than Step 1.

To suggest that these standardized tests aren't "influential in things in life that truly matter" is a rather disingenuous statement: mcat score matter for med school acceptance and step 1 matters for residency placement. There are definitely diminishing returns for the "piss on you" scorers.

2. These test may measure some degrees of intelligence, but they fail to incorporate all the critical aspects of intelligence/hard work/integrity necessary to be a quality physician. However, I don't hear many solutions for this problem in this forum, and I don't know a better way to do things.
 
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...
I didnt even know it went up that high?!?!?!
 
1. No evidence to back this up, but several PDs have told me acing Step 1 is key, because programs have come to know, through experience, that the people who scored high on Step 1 won't fail specialty boards. Programs don't like their residents to fail their boards after the program puts years of time and energy into these young physicians.

So not true "real world success," but you gotta keep taking tests throughout your career. There is research to show that the MCAT (and undergrad GPA) correlates to Step 1 performance, but most med students who have taken Step 1 would agree that the MCAT is harder to study your way to a high score than Step 1.

To suggest that these standardized tests aren't "influential in things in life that truly matter" is a rather disingenuous statement: mcat score matter for med school acceptance and step 1 matters for residency placement. There are definitely diminishing returns for the "piss on you" scorers.

2. These test may measure some degrees of intelligence, but they fail to incorporate all the critical aspects of intelligence/hard work/integrity necessary to be a quality physician. However, I don't hear many solutions for this problem in this forum, and I don't know a better way to do things.
That is why it is important to correlate step 1 scores with clinical evals during third and fourth year.
 
this stupid thread was started by someone if you were to take the time to check is ON PROBATION.

seriously...he's been a thorn on the side of everyone here. lets take a break from posting on this useless thread that attempts to validate his own self esteem and sense of self worth.

this isnt about the importance of scores, this is about the OP trying to feel good about potential scores for one reason or another.

the comments on MCAT and Step one have already been debated ad naseum. to add to it, there is enough evidence that shows a statistical and mathematical relationship between mcat and step one. there is no causation, merely a correlation. take it at that and leave it.

its frustrating to see people bring up the same tired arguments over and over because they refuse to actually read through threads. there's no need to beat a dead horse.

👎thumbdown

:beat::diebanana::beat:
 
There may possibly well be a correlation between MCAT, USMLE, and med school grades - but real world success is a whole different ball game. True, it depends on the definition of success but I think it's a little judgement to assume that people with low test scores or grades aren't going to be successful.
 
Top