Retaking a 512? Pointless or beneficial?

[Goro]

---

Members do not see this ad.

We are allergic to people who make bad choices. Even though we try really hard ot screen these out int he admissions process, they still leak through. That's why we end up with students who, for example, don't understand that what worked in college doesn't work in med school, and thus flounder, or that you can't do both med school and some other significant activity, like, say, be a stocks consultant (true story).



From reading these threads, why is it that the logic regarding MCATs seem to run somewhat counterintuitive to certain "qualities" that medical schools look for?

Determinism as a positive trait is overrated by pre-meds. We want people who are successful. Resilience is a more sought after trait. The MCAT is a career-deciding, high stakes exam. Why should we take someone who didn't take it seriously???? Again, choice making.

Why does multiple retakes (assuming improvement in score) not show determinism or a commitment to excellence (why must this go to hubris)? I was also under the assumption that schools weigh your most recent score most heavily, but somehow there's also a great emphasis on doing well the very first time around?

For many schools, this is true. But when one already has a good score, this brings more negative qualities to light. The people with the "I know I could do better" attitude usually are the types of people who try to learn everything and end up learning nothing, or are the hyper-achievers who are chronically in our offices pestering us as to why their 95 exam score should actually be a 96. Again, we circle around to: "if you could have done better, why didn't you do so on theh first try?"


Medical schools also like applicants to show resilience/overcoming various challenges. If someone improved dramatically from one sitting to the next, why would the first score matter so much? Or do adcoms generally view the first sitting as "most reflective of student's ability" and subsequent ones as "improving from experience" and/or "student got lucky"?

We WANT people who are actually good at this (see bolded)
Is it more important to not re-take a perfectly "good" score or is it more important to have a score an applicant feels is reflective of their capabilities? One could say that students may not be very good at evaluating their own abilities, but the mcat would theoretically be the judge of that.

Yes, and see above for why
Why the general discouragement of re-takes? Simply high-risk, low yield?

The MCAT is a competency exam, plain and simple.
I've always been so curious about this line of thinking. We have post-bacs/SMP/grade replacements for GPA improvement. EC's can always be improved/expanded. The MCAT seems to be the odd one out - high pressure, do it right once or certain doors will slam shut and never open again.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lnsean]

If you void the exam, you don't know if you got a 495 or a 525. There is just no way to know. So that really gives you no significant insight into the exam other than as a chance to sit in front of a computer for a few hours. This just doesn't give you much help. How do you know that the second time you take it for a score is higher than your voided exam would be?

Exactly my point. Thats why AAMC does not score it. The original argument was someone taking it 1st time and getting a 512 and then taking it a second time and getting 526. People in this thread feel that taking it 2 times...scored...does not confer an advantage and I disagree.

 

[kb1900]

The difference is I am not using the data to negate someone's else argument. He was cherry-picking variables to negate my argument. You should be posting this in response to his posts...not mine.

No because "anecdotally" and the data of retesters that I've seen from my peers that are tutors at Kaplan, Nextstep etc. demonstrate that retesters hardly ever show significant improvement. What logically follows is that they didn't have any more advantage than had they simply taken another practice test.

What does not logically follow is that there is an advantage they fail to utilize before retesting. That sounds more like pulling **** out of thin air with some convoluted argument about voiding exams.

On top of that, from the data I've seen, those retesters that maximize how many practice tests they take and thoroughly review before their second sitting are the ones that actually show an improvement greater than 3-4 points. This indicates to me, again "anecdotally", that sitting for the test does not have a significant advantage over just taking another practice test.

 

[Lnsean]

No because "anecdotally" and the data of retesters that I've seen from my peers that are tutors at Kaplan, Nextstep etc. demonstrate that retesters hardly ever show significant improvement. What logically follows is that they didn't have any more advantage than had they simply taken another practice test.

What does not logically follow is that there is an advantage they fail to utilize before retesting. That sounds more like pulling **** out of thin air with some convoluted argument about voiding exams.

On top of that, from the data I've seen, those retesters that maximize how many practice tests they take and thoroughly review before their second sitting are the ones that actually show an improvement greater than 3-4 points. This indicates to me, again "anecdotally", that sitting for the test does not have a significant advantage over just taking another practice test.

You are doing the very same thing you just accused me of doing. Please stop. Like is this for real?

 

[kb1900]

You are doing the very same thing you just accused me of doing. Please stop. Like is this for real?

give me something...litearlly anything that supports what you are saying.

at least i've seen dozens of excel sheets that back my claims.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

Exactly my point. Thats why AAMC does not score it. The original argument was someone taking it 1st time and getting a 512 and then taking it a second time and getting 526. People in this thread feel that taking it 2 times...scored...does not confer an advantage and I disagree.

But taking it twice does not really give an big advantage. Most retakes are within a few points either way on the exam. There is a large number that do worse. That would really hurt your application if you had a reasonable score and retook it and got lower.

 

[Lnsean]

give me something...litearlly anything that supports what you are saying.

at least i've seen dozens of excel sheets that back my claims.

What do your excel sheets back? Please elaborate. I don't think it says what you think it says.

 

[kb1900]

But taking it twice does not really give an big advantage. Most retakes are within a few points either way on the exam. There is a large number that do worse. That would really hurt your application if you had a reasonable score and retook it and got lower.

nah dude you're lying. tht logic does not compute

thats his argument

 

[kb1900]

What do your excel sheets back? Please elaborate. I don't think it says what you think it says.

im done with this thread lol. its not worth it

 

[Lnsean]

But taking it twice does not really give an big advantage. Most retakes are within a few points either way on the exam. There is a large number that do worse. That would really hurt your application if you had a reasonable score and retook it and got lower.

Yea..that's not the point. Scoring higher or lower the second time just means that certain students are able to capitalize on it while others didn't. It does not negate the fact that the advantage exists. It's like a rich student being able to afford 2 practice exams...scored.....while another student could only afford 1 exam. Should the studnet with 2 practice exams score better? Of course. Does it happen? Yea/no/maybe.

The student with the 2 practice exams has an advantage...whether he scores higher or lower is irrelevant...that just reflects on him personally....the advantage exists.

 

[Lnsean]

im done with this thread lol. its not worth it

I asked u for specifics...and you bounced. Great.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

Yea..that's not the point. Scoring higher or lower the second time just means that certain students are able to capitalize on it while others didn't. It does not negate the fact that the advantage exists. It's like a rich student being able to afford 2 practice exams...scored.....while another student could only afford 1 exam. Should the studnet with 2 practice exams score better? Of course. Does it happen? Yea/no/maybe.

The student with the 2 practice exams has an advantage...whether he scores higher or lower is irrelevant...that just reflects on him personally....the advantage exists.

You can get 13 tests and prep material from the AAMC for $238. That's hardly reserved just for the "rich student".

https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/online-practice-mcat-exam/

 

[littledreamer]

Hi OP! Just chiming in to say that I would advise against a retake.

I'm someone who also scored a 512, (with a similar GPA) and mine was extraordinarily unbalanced. I potentially could have done much better in physics with more studying (I did not go about studying the right way for the MCAT) but I was also fairly confident that most of my other subsections wouldn't change at all. I was pretty sure I was going to retake until SDN intervened and I'm seriously so glad they did.

N=1, but I'm from one of the worst states and still have 7 interviews and 2 acceptances thus far. Sure, I'm not going to Harvard but that's okay with me, and I think it will be okay for you too in the long run. It is extremely slim odds that a retake for people like us would actually increase our chances at T10 schools and like others have said, it is much more likely to damage our chances at schools that are a good fit.

My MCAT score is definitely not the strongest part of my application. I assume it plays neutrally, but I'm no adcom member. But I also feel strongly that a 512 isn't going to hold you back if the rest of your application is in order, but a retake might.


Best of luck to you!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lnsean]

You can get 13 tests and prep material from the AAMC for $238. That's hardly reserved just for the "rich student".

https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/online-practice-mcat-exam/

None of that negates my point...and those practice tests do not compare to the real thing. We're talking about 350$ to do a sitting on the real exam...but that wasn't my main point. Rich vs poor was thrown in there for more context.

The main point is the person taking multiple REAL mcat exams (whether you're rich and your parents paid for it or poor and had to save up)...scored...will have an advantage. Getting a 526 with 2-3 attempts is much easier than 526 with 1 attempt...and this is the reason AAMC does not score voided exams...the reason adcoms do not look favorably on retakes. The MCAT...like your boards...should be a one time thing.

Why should a student A...who took the exam seriously and studied for it and did well on the first time....be weighed on the same level as student B...who didn't take it seriously (laziness, overconfidence, whatever the reason) got a bad score and then retook a second time to get a higher score. That's unfair and does not give full credit for the applicants who successful did well...under high pressure...on the first try. If you read Goro's post above (I think he's adcom)...it reflects the same thinking.

Someone said "well it's inate...if he scored a 526 on the 2nd attempt...that's where he's at in terms of capability." I beg to differ...why wasn't he able to get a 526 on the first attempt? What changed ...if it's innate? Nothing changed except the preparation...he took it the first time...got a 512...got feedback...knows his weakness/strengths...and used that information to his advantage to retake for a better score.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

None of that negates my point...and those practice tests do not compare to the real thing. We're talking about 350$ to do a sitting on the real exam...but that wasn't my main point. Rich vs poor was thrown in there for more context.

The main point is the person taking multiple REAL mcat exams (whether you're rich and your parents paid for it or poor and had to save up)...scored...will have an advantage. Getting a 526 with 2-3 attempts is much easier than 526 with 1 attempt...and this is the reason AAMC does not score voided exams...the reason adcoms do not look favorably on retakes. The MCAT...like your boards...should be a one time thing.

Why should a student A...who took the exam seriously and studied for it and did well on the first time....be weighed on the same level as student B...who didn't take it seriously (laziness, overconfidence, whatever the reason) got a bad score and then retook a second time to get a higher score. That's unfair and does not give full credit for the applicants who successful did well...under high pressure...on the first try. If you read Goro's post above (I think he's adcom)...it reflects the same thinking.

Someone said "well it's inate...if he scored a 526 on the 2nd attempt...that's where he's at in terms of capability." I beg to differ...why wasn't he able to get a 526 on the first attempt? What changed ...if it's innate? Nothing changed except the preparation...he took it the first time...got a 512...got feedback...knows his weakness/strengths...and used that information to retake for a better score.

 

[Lnsean]

dude you can sigh all you want...lol. Just read Goro's post. He's adcom. No one here that commented is adcom. There's just a lot of people in this specific thread who had retaken the mcat multiple times and are just trying to defend that mentality. It doesn't change how other ppl will view that...it's a negative. The MCAT should be a one-time deal...your boards should be a one time deal...saying otherwise is a disservice to all the applicants who prepared seriously the first time...who put in all of their efforts the first time.

 

[Lawpy]

im done with this thread lol. its not worth it

welcome to the club

 

[Lnsean]

Just read Goro's post. He's adcom. No one here that commented is adcom. There's just a lot of people in this specific thread who had retaken the mcat multiple times and are just trying to defend that mentality. It doesn't change how other ppl will view that...it's a negative. The MCAT should be a one-time deal...your boards is a one time deal...saying otherwise is a disservice to all the applicants who prepared seriously the first time...who put in all of their efforts the first time.

 

[Lawpy]

Just read Goro's post. He's adcom. No one here that commented is adcom. There's just a lot of people in this specific thread who had retaken the mcat multiple times and are just trying to defend that mentality. It doesn't change how other ppl will view that...it's a negative. The MCAT should be a one-time deal...your boards should be a one time deal...saying otherwise is a disservice to all the applicants who prepared seriously the first time...who put in all of their efforts the first time.

the arguments are being changed too many times. but...

Someone said "well it's inate...if he scored a 526 on the 2nd attempt...that's where he's at in terms of capability." I beg to differ...why wasn't he able to get a 526 on the first attempt? What changed ...if it's innate? Nothing changed except the preparation...he took it the first time...got a 512...got feedback...knows his weakness/strengths...and used that information to his advantage to retake for a better score.

better preparation isn't the main factor for the 14-point jump. as far as why the innate ability didn't kick in the first time, well, it's much easier to bomb the MCAT or do mediocre than excelling on the exam. a 512 can be explained as a fluke (especially if a subsection is damningly low). no one will view a 519+ score as a fluke.

 

[Lnsean]

the arguments are being changed too many times. but...



better preparation isn't the main factor for the 14-point jump. as far as why the innate ability didn't kick in the first time, well, it's much easier to bomb the MCAT or do mediocre than excelling on the exam. a 512 can be explained as a fluke (especially if a subsection is damningly low). no one will view a 519+ score as a fluke.

Argument hasn't been changed. Adcoms do not look on retakes favorably and Goro says so himself. Again...if you were capable...why didn't you do it the first time?

as far as why the innate ability didn't kick in the first time, well, it's much easier to bomb the MCAT or do mediocre than excelling on the exam. a 512 can be explained as a fluke (especially if a subsection is damningly low). no one will view a 519+ score as a fluke.

LOL....dismissing your setbacks as flukes...okay. Don't make excuses. Take responsibility for your actions. You can explain it all you want dude...it's not going to change how others or adcoms feel about it. While you're there speculating as to why someone jumped from 512 to 526...adcom isn't going to do that. Adcom is going to ask...why didn't you do it the first time? Why should you be on the same level as someone who scored this the first time?

My view is in line with the consensus on SND...if you look at the first few posts from others...the consensus is to not retake...because it's looked at unfavorably. The MCAT is a one-time deal...you should take it seriously the first and only time...and crush it. Only people who have had to retake multiple times would argue against this. It's a defense mechanism.

 

[Lawpy]

Argument hasn't been changed. Adcoms do not look on retakes favorably and Goro says so himself. Again...if you were capable...why didn't you do it the first time?



LOL....dismissing your setbacks as flukes...okay. Don't make excuses. Take responsibility for your actions. You can explain it all you want dude...it's not going to change how others or adcoms feel about it. While you're there speculating as to why someone jumped from 512 to 526...adcom isn't going to do that. My view is in line with the consensus on SND...if you look at the first few posts from others...the consensus is to not retake...because it's looked at unfavorably. The MCAT is a one-time deal...you should take it seriously the first and only time...and crush it. Only people who have had to retake multiple times would argue against this. It's a defense mechanism.

1. single, strong score is best outcome. everyone agrees

2. people retake the exam for various reasons. adcoms respond in many ways but usually average scores. so a 512 + 526 has effective lower bound of 519.

3. adcom subsection preferences matter. @Goro likes bio. if he sees an applicant with 130/130/122/130 with 122 in bio, he would probably advise a retake. idk how he would respond if same applicant gets a 526 on retake, but i doubt it would be poor

4. its much easier to fail or do mediocre on the exam than it is to score in top fraction of percentile. a 512 with a 130/130/122/130 distribution would warrant a retake

5. sdn consensus assumes the score is balanced and the test taker was scoring around the same in practice tests

6. should is different from is. the mcat is not a one-time test since the aamc has no reason to make it so (though they capped the max number to 7). but effect of multiple scores is weighed against by taking the average.

 

[Lnsean]

1. single, strong score is best outcome. everyone agrees

2. people retake the exam for various reasons. adcoms respond in many ways but usually average scores. so a 512 + 526 has effective lower bound of 519.

3. adcom subsection preferences matter. @Goro likes bio. if he sees an applicant with 130/130/122/130 with 122 in bio, he would probably advise a retake. idk how he would respond if same applicant gets a 526 on retake, but i doubt it would be poor

4. its much easier to fail or do mediocre on the exam than it is to score in top fraction of percentile. a 512 with a 130/130/122/130 distribution would warrant a retake

1. That's not what you guys were arguing. 512+526 is not equal to someone getting 519 on first try. Plain and simple.
2. The only adcom that has commented is Goro and he begs to differ.
3. That's your speculation..but we weren't talking about subsections here. Why change the argument?
4. So if you knew your distribution on the first attempt...you can tailor your studies for the 2nd attempt. You just proved my point. BUT Again..the argument was never about distribution. Why are you changing topics at this point in the game. If he was capable of a 526...why didn't he do it on the first try? Because on the second try...he had the advantage of knowing how he did prior....which section he was weak in.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

 

[Goro]

AMCAS does tell us to average scores, and this we listen to (although individuals may differ). Averaging scores does have more predictive value than does taking the best score or superscore.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.[/QUOTE]

 

[BadNewsBears2016]

Check mate.

LOL. I'm sure you're a good guy, Lnsean, but why are you treating this like such a contest? It's not. And if it was, I would say that you have made a valiant effort and some reasonable points, but you aren't "winning." I think your conclusion has a strong tinge of subjectivity to it, even though your justification isn't necessarily erroneous.

 

[kb1900]

1. That's not what you guys were arguing. 512+526 is not equal to someone getting 519 on first try. Plain and simple.
2. The only adcom that has commented is Goro and he begs to differ.
3. That's your speculation..but we weren't talking about subsections here. Why change the argument?
4. So if you knew your distribution on the first attempt...you can tailor your studies for the 2nd attempt. You just proved my point. BUT Again..the argument was never about distribution. Why are you changing topics at this point in the game. If he was capable of a 526...why didn't he do it on the first try? Because on the second try...he had the advantage of knowing how he did prior....which section he was weak in.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

lol @ checkmate

you're making decent points but you've missed the point repeatedly of what people are trying to explain to you and how subjective you;re being

 

[Lawpy]

1. That's not what you guys were arguing. 512+526 is not equal to someone getting 519 on first try. Plain and simple.
2. The only adcom that has commented is Goro and he begs to differ.
3. That's your speculation..but we weren't talking about subsections here. Why change the argument?
4. So if you knew your distribution on the first attempt...you can tailor your studies for the 2nd attempt. You just proved my point. BUT Again..the argument was never about distribution. Why are you changing topics at this point in the game. If he was capable of a 526...why didn't he do it on the first try? Because on the second try...he had the advantage of knowing how he did prior....which section he was weak in.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

AMCAS does tell us to average scores, and this we listen to (although individuals may differ). Averaging scores does have more predictive value than does taking the best score or superscore.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

LOL. I'm sure you're a good guy, Lnsean, but why are you treating this like such a contest? It's not. And if it was, I would say that you have made a valiant effort and some reasonable points, but you aren't "winning." I think your conclusion has a strong tinge of subjectivity to it, even though your justification isn't necessarily erroneous.

alright i'm not sure what's going on, but i'll reply soon once i get access to a power outlet

 

[Goro]

Fixed mine.

alright i'm not sure what's going on, but i'll reply soon once i get access to a power outlet

 

[Lnsean]

LOL. I'm sure you're a good guy, Lnsean, but why are you treating this like such a contest? It's not. And if it was, I would say that you have made a valiant effort and some reasonable points, but you aren't "winning." I think your conclusion has a strong tinge of subjectivity to it, even though your justification isn't necessarily erroneous.

Nah it isn't a contest. I just find it appalling that so many people who have had to retake the mcats are dismissing the advantage that retaking the same exam has. It's a disservice to those that gave it their all on the first attempt. If you have to retake the mcat...that's fine...don't say that it's the same as the first attempt though...or that there's no advantage... it's clearly there. That's not fair to the people who made the conscientious choice to take their attempts seriously.

IF you're talking about subjectivity...I feel that this thread attracts more people who have had to retake mcats than the other group of ppl who succeeded with one attempt. So...

 

[MareNostrummm]

Hi OP! Just chiming in to say that I would advise against a retake.

I'm someone who also scored a 512, (with a similar GPA) and mine was extraordinarily unbalanced. I potentially could have done much better in physics with more studying (I did not go about studying the right way for the MCAT) but I was also fairly confident that most of my other subsections wouldn't change at all. I was pretty sure I was going to retake until SDN intervened and I'm seriously so glad they did.

N=1, but I'm from one of the worst states and still have 7 interviews and 2 acceptances thus far. Sure, I'm not going to Harvard but that's okay with me, and I think it will be okay for you too in the long run. It is extremely slim odds that a retake for people like us would actually increase our chances at T10 schools and like others have said, it is much more likely to damage our chances at schools that are a good fit.

My MCAT score is definitely not the strongest part of my application. I assume it plays neutrally, but I'm no adcom member. But I also feel strongly that a 512 isn't going to hold you back if the rest of your application is in order, but a retake might.


Best of luck to you!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

How low was your C/P section? I have a 512 as well, but with a low CARS instead. 128/124/129/131... if my verbal was any lower I would definitely retake but a 124 is 49%, or a verbal of 8 on the old scale, so I'm just running with it. Going to apply MD and DO for the 2018 cycle.

 

[Lnsean]

AMCAS does tell us to average scores, and this we listen to (although individuals may differ). Averaging scores does have more predictive value than does taking the best score or superscore.


So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

Of course...it wouldnt be fair to take the best score or superscore. I would even go farther and say that averaging them isn't even fair. There should be a penalty for retaking. You shouldnt' get to retake scores until you like it. That's not real life. I'm not adcom...but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[BadNewsBears2016]

Nah it isn't a contest. I just find it appalling that so many people who have had to retake the mcats are dismissing the advantage that retaking the same exam has. It's a disservice to those that gave it their all on the first attempt. If you have to retake the mcat...that's fine...don't say that it's the same as the first attempt though...or that there's no advantage... it's clearly there. That's not fair to the people who made the conscientious choice to take their attempts seriously.

We're all just trying to achieve our goals. We all have varying levels of difficulties. Why does it need to be identified and/or quantified? All is good man. This thing is tough. Root for other people, don't knock them down.

 

[hubbsbubbs]

Not trying to get in the middle of this argument, just advice for the OP. Feel free to PM me.

I retook a 512. I still don't know if that was a good idea, even though I improved. I was a new premed at the time, and took poor advice from a misinformed friend who told me I wouldn't get into medical school.

Based on your stats, I think you're better off not retaking it. I had some serious GPA flaws and felt like an improved score would make up for it. That may not be the case. People tend to look down on multiple takes, something that became much more apparent once I was a re-taker. My 523 wasn't impressive to people, and I imagine that will be the case to many adcoms.

If you really feel that you can improve without making major sacrifices, however, then it could be a good idea. For me, I gave up too much time and opportunities to get that score. I could have volunteered, done research, supported my family, worked, or found ways to develop my mind and gain new experiences. Instead, I took practice tests for two months.

Mine is just one perspective. And I don't want to encourage you to make a decision you will regret. But honestly, your stats look fine. Much better than mine.

Good Luck.

 

[Lnsean]

We're all just trying to achieve our goals. We all have varying levels of difficulties. Why does it need to be identified and/or quantified? All is good man. This thing is tough. Root for other people, don't knock them down.

Of course..and I agree with you. It was never meant as that. I just wanted to get that point across. It was not intended to be personal. Sometimes what needs to be said may not be what people want to hear.

 

[BadNewsBears2016]

Of course..and I agree with you. It was never meant as that. I just wanted to get that point across. It was not intended to be personal.

But at what point do you decide that proving your argument is starting to come at the expense of others?

All is good. You did a fine job of relaying your point. El fin!

 

[Lnsean]

But at what point do you decide that proving your argument is starting to come at the expense of others?

All is good. You did a fine job of relaying your point. El fin!

Thanks...I feel there's nothing wrong with having an honest discussion though. If people raise up a point that I feel is not true...I will speak it. It goes down to who you are as a person. I don't think there is an expense to an honest debate. It was professional...there were no personal attacks or anything. I think everyone was professional. That's just me and my 2 cents.

 

[MareNostrummm]

Not trying to get in the middle of this argument, just advice for the OP. Feel free to PM me.

I retook a 512. I still don't know if that was a good idea, even though I improved. I was a new premed at the time, and took poor advice from a misinformed friend who told me I wouldn't get into medical school.

Based on your stats, I think you're better off not retaking it. I had some serious GPA flaws and felt like an improved score would make up for it. That may not be the case. People tend to look down on multiple takes, something that became much more apparent once I was a re-taker. My 523 wasn't impressive to people, and I imagine that will be the case to many adcoms.

If you really feel that you can improve without making major sacrifices, however, then it could be a good idea. For me, I gave up too much time and opportunities to get that score. I could have volunteered, done research, supported my family, worked, or found ways to develop my mind and gain new experiences. Instead, I took practice tests for two months.

Mine is just one perspective. And I don't want to encourage you to make a decision you will regret. But honestly, your stats look fine. Much better than mine.

Good Luck.

A 523 is amazing... 99th percentile on one of the most difficult and strenuous tests out there. There are people who take the test 3+ times and still never even break a 508 or a 30 (80th% percentile) yet alone a 512. I would have been very impressed.

 

[Lnsean]

lol @ checkmate

you're making decent points but you've missed the point repeatedly of what people are trying to explain to you and how subjective you;re being

Claiming data that shows no improvement for retakers does not prove that an advantage does not exist. Your whole argument comes down to data...and you always claim data this and data that. I don't think you know how to analyze that data. Why do retakers not score significantly higher? We don't know. You don't know. Therefore, you cannot draw a conclusion based on that.

All the data can say is that these test takers did not improve signifcantly. You cannot draw a conclusion as to why. You can only speculate. Whether they took advantage of the information on the previous attempts or not...you don't know that. Maybe some were able to capitalize on it while others could not. It could be a reflection of their aptitude. It could be high stress of having to do better on subsequent attempts. It could be they got a hard topic. There are many variables. You do not have the data to rule out a single variable....these google excel sheets that you keep mentioning cannot conclude that. An advantage does not necessitate higher scores because these scores are dependent on other factors too. Higher scores can be used to confirm the advantage but lower scores do not rule it out.

 

[kb1900]

Claiming data that shows no improvement for retakers does not prove that an advantage does not exist. Your whole argument comes down to data...and you always claim data this and data that. I don't think you know how to analyze that data. Why do retakers not score significantly higher? We don't know. You don't know. Therefore, you cannot draw a conclusion based on that.

All the data can say is that these test takers did not improve signifcantly. You cannot draw a conclusion as to why. You can only speculate. Whether they took advantage of the information on the previous attempts or not...you don't know that. Maybe some were able to capitalize on it while others could not. It could be a reflection of their aptitude. It could be high stress of having to do better on subsequent attempts. It could be they got a hard topic. There are many variables. You do not have the data to rule out a single variable....these google excel sheets that you keep mentioning cannot conclude that. An advantage does not necessitate higher scores because these scores are dependent on other factors too. Higher scores can be used to confirm the advantage but lower scores do not rule it out.

**Looks at dozens of retesters who did not do well**

Me: they couldnt improve despite any advantages of taking the same test twice. either the advantage is negligible or theres other mediators

You: even with retesting they couldnt improve even tho theres obviously an advantage


does that about sum it up? goodbye thread

 

[Lnsean]

**Looks at dozens of retesters who did not do well**

Me: they couldnt improve despite any advantages of taking the same test twice. either the advantage is negligible or theres other mediators

You: even with retesting they couldnt improve even tho theres obviously an advantage


does that about sum it up? goodbye thread

Yes that's because you need to execute too...you know that right? Having knowledge is an advantage but you have to be able to execute as well. This goes for everything in life. Just because you have an opportunity does mean that it's automatic. You still have to seize it and put effort into it.

Just like some people are born into money and subsequently squander it all on drugs and booze...they had an advantage...it doesn't always mean better outcomes.

 

[banthapug]

But it seems like YOU have drawn a conclusion though.

This is anecdotal, but as some one who took MCAT 3 times (old one twice and new one once) and had a significant score increase in every retake, sure, my past exposure in a test center setting was advantageous. But the advantage was insignificant. I knew where the bathroom was and I knew how long it took to get to the center. I learned how to check in between every break. But that was it. Things that made a difference in my scores were my study habits and areas to focus on.

Your interpretation of data is subjective just like everyone else's at this point, but it seems like you are dead set on ONLY believing your interpretation. I don't think it would hurt for you to consider the other interpretation as well.

Claiming data that shows no improvement for retakers does not prove that an advantage does not exist. Your whole argument comes down to data...and you always claim data this and data that. I don't think you know how to analyze that data. Why do retakers not score significantly higher? We don't know. You don't know. Therefore, you cannot draw a conclusion based on that.

All the data can say is that these test takers did not improve. You cannot draw a conclusion as to why. You can only speculate. Whether they took advantage of the information on the previous attempts or not...you don't know that. Maybe some were able to capitalize on it while others could not. It could be a reflection of their aptitude. It could be high stress of having to do better on subsequent attempts. It could be they got a hard topic. There are many variables. You do not have the data to rule out a single variable....these google excel sheets that you keep mentioning cannot conclude that. An advantage does not necessitate higher scores because these scores are dependent on other factors too.

 

[Lnsean]

But it seems like YOU have drawn a conclusion though.

This is anecdotal, but as some one who took MCAT 3 times (old one twice and new one once) and had a significant score increase in every retake, sure, my past exposure in a test center setting was advantageous. But the advantage was insignificant. I knew where the bathroom was and I knew how long it took to get to the center. I learned how to check in between every break. But that was it. Things that made a difference in my scores were my study habits and areas to focus on.

Your interpretation of data is subjective just like everyone else's at this point, but it seems like you are dead set on ONLY believing your interpretation. I don't think it would hurt for you to consider the other interpretation as well.

I didn't use any of that data to draw my conclusion. I never even mentioned the data until now. Please elaborate...what was my conclusion that was drawn from the data?

 

[banthapug]

I didn't use any of that data to draw my conclusion. Please elaborate...what was my conclusion?

You looked at the data that said most retakers didn't do much on their retake and you concluded it was because retakers didn't utilize the advantage that was given by taking MCAT once already. With the same data, other people interpreted that retaking doesn't give you that much advantage.

 

[Lnsean]

You looked at the data that said most retakers didn't do much on their retake and you concluded it was because retakers didn't utilize the advantage that was given by taking MCAT once already. With the same data, other people interpreted that retaking doesn't give you that much advantage.

lol..where did I say that...please quote me. I said it was one of the possible speculations. It wasn't my conclusion. He's determined that in order for an advantage to exist...scores must be higher. I was merely pointing out the flaws of his conclusion. You can have an advantage and have lower outcomes. For example, just like some people are born into money and subsequently squander it all on drugs and booze...they had an advantage...it doesn't always mean better outcomes.

My conclusion is pretty simple and it has been posted many times...it's not dependent on data:

So if you had 1 attempt prior...and found out that you were low in one subsection...this is an advantage. You can tailor you study more towards your weakest section for your 2nd attempt. That's an advantage not available to first time takers...and THAT IS WHY AAMC does not score voided exams. Check mate.

 

[Goro]

As I wrote before, averaging the exams gives more accurate predictive power than super-scoring or taking the best, most recent score.

The MCAt is not the be all for med school applicants. For example, outstanding ECs or a compelling life story do make us gamble on people with less than stellar stats. We don't look at single indicators, although they do tell us stories about the applicants.

And life's not fair. Med schools have seller's market.

Of course...it wouldnt be fair to take the best score or superscore. I would even go farther and say that averaging them isn't even fair. There should be a penalty for retaking. You shouldnt' get to retake scores until you like it. That's not real life. I'm not adcom...but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Lnsean]

As I wrote before, averaging the exams gives more accurate predictive power than super-scoring or taking the best, most recent score.

The MCAt is not the be all for med school applicants. For example, outstanding ECs or a compelling life story do make us gamble on people with less than stellar stats. We don't look at single indicators, although they do tell us stories about the applicants.

And life's not fair. Med schools have seller's market.

and I definitely agree. I was just adding my own 2 cents into that. You are adcom so obviously you have more experience.

 

[banthapug]

You said it here:

AGAIN....We're not arguing whether you get the same results with feedback....I am arguing that the person with the feedback....has more information....and thus an advantage over someone who does not have feedback. Whether they choose to take advantage of that or not does not negate this fact.

Someone who takes the MCAT...2, 3, or 4 times...has an advantage. If they scored lower...it just means that they weren't able to capitalize on that....it does not mean the advantage didn't exist. Your data shows that most test takers are not able to capitalize on this advantage...that's all it can say. The advantage is still there.

Also, the advantage you are describing is something you can get by doing practice passages and practice exams. I don't think it's an exclusive advantage to taking the real test.

 

[Lnsean]

You said it here:


Also, the advantage you are describing is something you can get by doing practice passages and practice exams. I don't think it's an exclusive advantage to taking the real test.

That's not true. The person that is retaking will always have that +1 attempt on everyone else. Practice exams do not simulate real testing conditions. They are available to everyone wherease the real mcat attempts are precious and should only be attempted once...ppl are not going to use that as their practice exam unless it turns out that way. So your comparison isnt accurate.

 

[banthapug]

But you said the advantage was that you can see the subscores and find an area to focus on. You can do that with practice tests and passages. You can also try to simulate real testing conditions. I locked myself up in a study room in a library for every practice exam and treated as a real thing. Is it exactly the same? Sure, it wasn't. But the advantage that came with knowing the real test condition was extremely minuscule to everything else I did to raise my score.

That's not true. The person that is retaking will always have that +1 attempt on everyone else. Practice exams do not simulate real testing conditions. They are available to everyone wherease the real mcat attempts are precious and should only be attempted once...ppl are not going to use that as their practice exam unless it turns out that way. So your comparison isnt accurate.

 

[Lnsean]

But you said the advantage was that you can see the subscores and find an area to focus on. You can do that with practice tests and passages. You can also try to simulate real testing conditions. I locked myself up in a study room in a library for every practice exam and treated as a real thing. Is it exactly the same? Sure, it wasn't. But the advantage that came with knowing the real test condition was extremely minuscule to everything else I did to raise my score.

Again...retakers will know their performance on a real exam whereas others only have practice exams. Real exams wins. However miniscule or insignificant that is up to each individual test taker to weigh...it is not your call. You don't speak for everyone.

 

[banthapug]

See, that's your speculation. It's not necessarily true. You don't have any evidence to say "Real exam wins." Every MCAT is different. Questions and passages change. Many AAMC practice exams were old test questions. So I'd argue practice exams provide the same advantage that you are describing, which is it allows you to know your strength and weakness.

Again...retakers will know their performance on a real exam whereas others only have practice exams. Real exams wins.