SAT and MCAT

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Foxx

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
  1. Pre-Medical
For those of you who have taken both the SAT and the MCAT or know people who have, how strong is the relationship between the two? I'm don't know much about the MCAT, but it seems like a tougher SAT with less math and more science. I have an SAT of 1380 old 2010 new, and I was wondering if I could find any certain range from that.
 
For those of you who have taken both the SAT and the MCAT or know people who have, how strong is the relationship between the two? I'm don't know much about the MCAT, but it seems like a tougher SAT with less math and more science. I have an SAT of 1380 old 2010 new, and I was wondering if I could find any certain range from that.

No relationship at all. The MCAT is a test on the prerequisite sciences (bio, chem, phys, orgo), plus a section on verbal reasoning which doesn't compare with the SAT's verbal test. And it is a much longer endurance test. You can extrapolate no range on the MCAT from the SAT. Once you have taken the courses and taken some full length practice tests, then you can have a sense of where you are.
 
with the SAT, i knew the average scores of the school I wanted to get into. So i knew that as long as i got a certain score, I would be fine. I only took the test once, was satisfied with the score, and never looked back.

With the MCAT, i tired to maximise my score. Because only a fool would think that a score is "good enough". The higher it is, the better your chances. So my MCAT score is better than my SAT score. But had I cared about the SAT as much as I cared about the MCAT, I probably would have scored in the same percentile.
 
The MCAT is a test on the prerequisite sciences (bio, chem, phys, orgo)...

I'd hate to rip on a veteran SDNer, but that is such BS. I don't care how many textbooks you memorize, you're never breaking 33 if I don't know how to use your head. And I don't mean "don't stay up late the night before", i mean really knowing how to take a standardized test.
 
No relationship whatsoever. I walked into the SAT with little prep and did well - first time. I worked my arse off for the MCAT - and took it twice to get a good score. MCAT is more about memorization and keeping your brain functioning for 8 hrs.

There are a lot of people who get 1500-1600s on the SAT - many acing it. Getting over a 40 on the MCAT is a rare, impressive feat. I don't think anyone has gotten a 45 in recent years on the MCAT.

Top undergrad schools typically have SAT averages of 1500ish. For top med schools that's 35ish. The distribution is just completely different.

i would totally agree that the SAT and MCAT are different. but i would definitely also argue that the MCAT is not about memorization. there are facts you need to know and equations you need to commit to memory for the discretes, but nearly all of the passage-based questions can be answered correctly just utilizing the material that is presented in the passage.

just like any other test, i know people who have walked in after taking 2-3 practice tests with about 2-3 weeks of study, only to score 35+ in the end, and people who studied for 4 months straight, took practice tests every weekend, and got mid to upper 20s. a certain level of natural test-taking ability and intelligence, combined with luck regarding the topics of the passages, probably outweigh the memorization component. but that's just my opinion!
 
I'd hate to rip on a veteran SDNer, but that is such BS. I don't care how many textbooks you memorize, you're never breaking 33 if I don't know how to use your head. And I don't mean "don't stay up late the night before", i mean really knowing how to take a standardized test.

Knowing these courses has little to do with memorization. It wasn't my post that suggested memorization was the key -- that was MSTP?. You have to do problems in all of these courses (except perhaps bio) to master them. Those problem solving skills translate well to the MCAT. Natural aptitude doesn't, and that is why this is not considered an aptitude test, as the SAT actually is.
 
Knowing these courses has little to do with memorization. It wasn't my post that suggested memorization was the key -- that was MSTP?. You have to do problems in all of these courses (except perhaps bio) to master them. Those problem solving skills translate well to the MCAT. Natural aptitude doesn't, and that is why this is not considered an aptitude test, as the SAT actually is.

point taken
 
What is really important about standardized tests is how well you perform relative to your peers, as manifested in your percentile. This is the ultimately indicator of your performance on the exam. Most people receive a lower percentile on the MCAT than on the SAT and complain that the MCAT is "so much harder" than the SAT. But you have to keep in mind that it is much harder to receive the same, or a better, percentile on the MCAT simply because the competition is so much stiffer: you are only competing against those who have completed their science pre-reqs and are serious about med school, whereas most college-bound seniors take the SAT.

This extra competition makes attaining the same percentile on the MCAT much more difficult. For example, I did not prepare for the SAT at all (except for taking the PSAT) and received a score in the mid 1500's (the old SAT), which was upper 99 percentile. On the MCAT, I studied about 200hrs this summer and just barely averaged 99 percentile on practice tests (about 38).
 
If you have awesome test taking skills you'll have an easier time on both thats for sure.
 
If you have awesome test taking skills you'll have an easier time on both thats for sure.

In general, people who work hard in high school work hard in college, work hard in med school, and will work hard as physicians. In general, people who are of above average intellect in high school will remain of above average intellect in college, of above average intellect in med school, and of above average intellect as physicians. Since scores on the SAT, the MCAT, the USMLE, and really whatever else standardized test you're taking about correlate well with hard work and intellect, scores on one standardized test correlate will with results on later standardized tests.

As pointed out though, the group you are competing with does get better with progression, and you will tend to have a dropping percentile trend as you advance in the exam hierarchy. 99th percentile SAT probably equates to about 95th percentile MCAT and probably around 90th percentile Step 1 due to the constant weed-out that occurs along the way. This is, on average, of course. Some people jerk off in high school or college, or become more inspired or decide to coast on past achievements, or whatever. But, in general, yes, the exams correlate.

In terms of your specific question, I wouldn't try to apply this general trend to your individual case. Work hard in college, do well in the science courses, and you'll do well on the MCAT.
 
I thought that the reading sections of both were similiar.
 
Well I don't consider myself especially brainy but I got a 34 on my MCAT (barely over the 33 mark.) I had a 1290 SAT, which wasn't especially high.
 
I don't think there's that much of a correlation... I did alright on the SAT, 1290, so I guess somewhat above average but not highly commendible or anything... on the MCAT I got 37, although I did a lot worse on the verbal section than on the sciences lol... but since the MCAT is more science based and the SAT isn't, it'd be easy to do great on the SAT but not do well on the mcat if your sciences aren't strong. The only real correlation is if you do well because you're "a natural test taker" or whatever...
 
I agree with her. I only got a 10 on verbal :/
I bet if I had studied that section I could have eeked an 11 there, but not too much higher.

I think the sky is the limit when it comes to physical and bio, but you won't do well in it without taking heavy course work in those studies or jsut be good at tests.
 
there's a great thread from a couple years back on this. I'm too lazy to search for it, but maybe someone else will.
 
I agree with her. I only got a 10 on verbal :/
I bet if I had studied that section I could have eeked an 11 there, but not too much higher.

I think the sky is the limit when it comes to physical and bio, but you won't do well in it without taking heavy course work in those studies or jsut be good at tests.
Do you think the upper level stuff is really necessary? I had only taken intro and genetics by that point. I didn't find the science very high level but you did have to take that knowledge and apply it to novel situations. While that is a skill you might learn in upper levels, I don't think you ALWAYS will. But maybe what I'm talking about is what you're referring to as being good at tests.
 
For those of you who have taken both the SAT and the MCAT or know people who have, how strong is the relationship between the two? I'm don't know much about the MCAT, but it seems like a tougher SAT with less math and more science. I have an SAT of 1380 old 2010 new, and I was wondering if I could find any certain range from that.
This topic has been discussed several times before, and the general consensus is, not a very strong correlation. No one would have ever predicted my MCAT score from my SAT and GRE scores, including me. But like other posters have already mentioned, I actually studied for the MCAT, and I didn't study for the SAT or GRE. 🙂
 
This topic has been discussed several times before, and the general consensus is, not a very strong correlation. No one would have ever predicted my MCAT score from my SAT and GRE scores, including me. But like other posters have already mentioned, I actually studied for the MCAT, and I didn't study for the SAT or GRE. 🙂
Out of curiosity: what was the general range of your GRE, Q?
 
Out of curiosity: what was the general range of your GRE, Q?
I scored around 1400 on both tests. That is a respectable score, but not comparable to my performance in the MCAT.
 
Well of course there's a correlation, but as others have mentioned, it's not a very strong one since the two tests test for different things.

I found studying for the MCAT to be easier than the SAT. For the SAT I basically just sat around memorizing vocab words whereas on the MCAT I studied science.
 
The only real correlation is that good test-takers remain good test-takers.

Furthermore, many people who receive a good SAT score are confident (without even looking at the MCAT) that they will get 40+ which just isn't true. Some certainly will, but most won't.

The point is to develop your critical thinking skills as well as learn the pre-reqs very well.

"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." = TA Edison
-Dr. P.

Edit: Wanted to add that there MIGHT be a correlation between ACT scientific reasoning section and the MCAT. I think they are similar. If there is a study on this, I would be really interested in seeing it.
 
Yes I think upper level science helped me. Biochem and physiology are the key ones. Genetics and immunology and pharmacology helpeda little bit also.
I wouldn't have gotten a 13 in bio without having taken these bio courses.

I don't know what helps in physics. I got a 11 in this section, which isn't so bad. I'm sure there are some intermediate physics courses that would prepare you or chem ones. I just don't know what they would be.
 
Do you think the upper level stuff is really necessary? I had only taken intro and genetics by that point. I didn't find the science very high level but you did have to take that knowledge and apply it to novel situations. While that is a skill you might learn in upper levels, I don't think you ALWAYS will. But maybe what I'm talking about is what you're referring to as being good at tests.

I don't think you need upper level stuff. I had only taken one bio course and one physics course before the test and I ended up doing quite well.

The material isn't super difficult to begin with so teaching yourself a few things is managable. I can't imagine that upper level courses would spend more than a week on an MCAT topic, I certainly wouldn't reccomend taking them specifically for test prep (orgo is an exception of course).
 
The only real correlation is that good test-takers remain good test-takers.

Furthermore, many people who receive a good SAT score are confident (without even looking at the MCAT) that they will get 40+ which just isn't true. Some certainly will, but most won't.

The point is to develop your critical thinking skills as well as learn the pre-reqs very well.

"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." = TA Edison
-Dr. P.

Edit: Wanted to add that there MIGHT be a correlation between ACT scientific reasoning section and the MCAT. I think they are similar. If there is a study on this, I would be really interested in seeing it.


Im not sure, so correct me if im wrong, but arent the mcat and act run and created by the same organization, whereas the sat is a different testing organization? I thought i read that somewhere.
 
Im not sure, so correct me if im wrong, but arent the mcat and act run and created by the same organization, whereas the sat is a different testing organization? I thought i read that somewhere.

Yes.
 
I thought that the reading sections of both were similiar.

The SAT is reading comprehension, whereas the MCAT is critical thinking.

Anyway, I think I did better on the MCAT than the SAT.
 
I don't think you need upper level stuff. I had only taken one bio course and one physics course before the test and I ended up doing quite well.

The material isn't super difficult to begin with so teaching yourself a few things is managable. I can't imagine that upper level courses would spend more than a week on an MCAT topic, I certainly wouldn't reccomend taking them specifically for test prep (orgo is an exception of course).

I think upper level classes can definitely help, at least I know they helped me in physics. Physics 1 and 2 are kind of a shallow overview of physics, and most upper level classes devote a whole semester to studying one particular topic in introductory physics. Although the mcat is not nearly as deep as these classes go, the basics from introductory courses get pounded into you and almost become second nature.
 
If I do well on the MCAT (which I hopefully will, since I have until April 2008 to take it!), I'm retaking the SAT for revenge (and maybe an even bigger ego boost). In highschool, with almost minimal preparation, I scored 1280 1st time, and 1310 the 2nd time...
 
There may be a general correlation between SAT and MCAT scores, but the tests are different. It would be interesting for someone to do a study of student scores on the SAT and MCAT to try to answer this question. I took both tests a long time ago (SAT in the early '70's and MCAT in early '80's). My SAT was 1540 (740V/800M) and my MCAT was 37. I don't know what the percentile equivalents were at the time.

Nick
 
No relationship at all. The MCAT is a test on the prerequisite sciences (bio, chem, phys, orgo), plus a section on verbal reasoning which doesn't compare with the SAT's verbal test. And it is a much longer endurance test. You can extrapolate no range on the MCAT from the SAT. Once you have taken the courses and taken some full length practice tests, then you can have a sense of where you are.

I'll go with Law2Doc here. However, if you scored well on the SAT, you may just do fine on the MCAT because you obviously have some base level of intelligence. Prepare for the MCAT - that's all. Don't approach it as a knowledge test - it's not.
 
Top Bottom