SAT score

[TheMightyAngus]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I think comparing GPA's is irrelevant unless you are comparing two people in the same major from the same university. To apply for med school you can be a music major, take non-calculus based physics, basic bio, inorganic, and organic chem. Cake. But if you're a bioengineering or comp sci major, you have to bully your way through much tougher courses for your major. Hard science and engineering majors have a much more difficult courseload in college and ad coms are aware of this. If you look at the MSAR, all med schools look for the substance and difficulty in your courseload. I'd say that's why average GPA's tend to be around 3.7-3.8 for Hopkins, Harvard, etc. They'd rather see you challenge yourself and get a couple B's than primp and polish your GPA with Comparative Dance and Tribal African Music: Theory and Discourse.

With that said, you can't correlate SAT's with GPA by themselves.

 

[freeMDnow]

I think comparing GPA's is irrelevant unless you are comparing two people in the same major from the same university. To apply for med school you can be a music major, take non-calculus based physics, basic bio, inorganic, and organic chem. Cake. But if you're a bioengineering or comp sci major, you have to bully your way through much tougher courses for your major. Hard science and engineering majors have a much more difficult courseload in college and ad coms are aware of this. If you look at the MSAR, all med schools look for the substance and difficulty in your courseload. I'd say that's why average GPA's tend to be around 3.7-3.8 for Hopkins, Harvard, etc. They'd rather see you challenge yourself and get a couple B's than primp and polish your GPA with Comparative Dance and Tribal African Music: Theory and Discourse.

With that said, you can't correlate SAT's with GPA by themselves.

I think us MD-types or medical equivalents will enjoy this link. It is an averaging of IQ scores across occupations. Scroll to the bottom and see who's at the top!

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Occupations.html

 

[freeMDnow]

i hope i'm not the only one who figures neuro said all this in jest 🙄

perhaps disconnected, even rambling? but has anyone read or browsed the book 1600 perfect score? someone profiled many students who raped the sat - the vaunted 1600. he noted that perfect score students weren't necessarily einsteins, but instead were highly motivated individuals whose goal was not to ace the sat, but rather to ace life! these students tended to have highly significant accomplishments in a broad spectrum of areas - music, linguistics, activism, publishing, entrepreneurship, research; and many more. the author rarely found one-dimensional 1600 students.

i would dare say that even without brilliant test-scores, having lots of drive and more importantly following up on it very consistently is cardinal, the point the author was trying to drive home. which is why even brilliant mcats and gpas don't take away the need for the interview. chances are, a great mcat and gpa is the reflection of a highly driven and motivated individual, but you can't leave the future of healthcare to chance, and in comes the interview - they would rather see someone who ain't that bright a spark with a penchant for challenging themselves, then someone who is brilliant and has been in the comfort zone since kingdom come.

conclusion, don't assign things like the sat and mcat more importance/attention than necessary. work on the drive/motivation portion (chances are everything else including the scores tends to fall into place).
peace! 🙂

You're right and I agree with you. Of course hard work is the most important component of any successful endeavor. That being said, would you want someone who is not able to grasp the dynamic concepts of ICU care taking care of your mother after an MI, no matter how diligent he or she is? The fact of the matter is there IS a ceiling to intelligence and while it is a plastic entity, for any given person that ceiling can only vary minutely over large periods of time.

Essentially, for a career like medicine, you need BOTH--intelligence AND diligence. The former is a prerequisite to understanding some of the difficult concepts of medical care, and the latter is essential to proper patient care. After all, people's lives are at stake here.

You need not be a certified genius, but you should have the minimal requirements necesssary to function as a physician cognitively. Hard work is what will make you a great doctor.

 

[gujuDoc]

Didn't take the SAT (Midwest). 35 on the ACT, however (yay scholarship!).

Isn't that one pt from perfect on the ACT????

 

[Reimat]

SAT scores/GPA/IQ are all superficial measures of how 'smart' one is. I say this despite having pretty respectable numbers. My point is that successful smart people can point to their awards, scholarships, and other achievements. Some people just test well, others just don't.

And, more importantly- why do threads about the SAT always pop up? Once you get into college NOBODY CARES about SAT or ACT scores. Or maybe I just feel that way because the MCAT is so much mightier a test than pre-college tests.

 

[amnesia]

I'm not in college yet.. but... here is my break down on the new SAT:

Math: 690
Verbal: 710
Writing: 680

It's enough to get a free ride to the University of Florida's Honors program.

So, I basically got a 1400... and a 4.0 unweighted GPA 👍

 

[willthatsall]

I'm not in college yet.. but... here is my break down on the new SAT:

Math: 690
Verbal: 710
Writing: 680

It's enough to get a free ride to the University of Florida's Honors program.

So, I basically got a 1400... and a 4.0 unweighted GPA 👍

You should get at least 26 on the MCAT with those numbers.

 

[Bill_H_Pike]

It looks like a bell curce has began to form with a median in the lower 1400s.

 

[fullefect1]

1110.... and my GPA was about the lowest you could possibly get in high school with graduating. However, I have around a 3.8 at my state school now... So I have to say high school mean absolutely NOTHING.....

 

[Dorkus Maximus]

Never took the SAT. Took the ACT in ninth grade and received a 27. Said good enough and never thought about it again. 🙂

 

[63768]

nice bell curve there.

 

[Shredder]

yeah i know, its really interesting its perfect

 

[EyeAmCommi]

You're right and I agree with you. Of course hard work is the most important component of any successful endeavor. That being said, would you want someone who is not able to grasp the dynamic concepts of ICU care taking care of your mother after an MI, no matter how diligent he or she is? The fact of the matter is there IS a ceiling to intelligence and while it is a plastic entity, for any given person that ceiling can only vary minutely over large periods of time.

Essentially, for a career like medicine, you need BOTH--intelligence AND diligence. The former is a prerequisite to understanding some of the difficult concepts of medical care, and the latter is essential to proper patient care. After all, people's lives are at stake here.

You need not be a certified genius, but you should have the minimal requirements necesssary to function as a physician cognitively. Hard work is what will make you a great doctor.

Right on.

 

[10minutes]

SAT my a$$. Math section is a joke, and I still pulled a pretty good score on verbal even though I was in ESL. The first time I took it was just 2 months after I landed on American soil and I got 980. After a year of high school I took once more and I got 1380. I heard the new SATs are harder. They made a right decision.

 

[doc05]

What's the average SAT score of pre-meds here. I'm willing to bet 1500+

wow, you've got an unjustifiably high opinion of premeds and physicians. Doctors aren't that smart. The average is probably around 1300.

 

[45408]

Although people may hate it that their low SAT scores correlate to less than desirable IQ scores, on average the links are highly accurate. (I got a 1410 & that correlates to a 138.87 IQ. My IQ is 139. While I wish I had a 152 IQ, I don't, so that's life.)

I'm pretty skeptical of your claims. Everyone seems to think they've got a ragingly high IQ, but here's a breakdown of what the percentages should be. http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html Someone with an IQ of 160 should only happen about one in 31,560 people.

 

[Kazema]

I'm pretty skeptical of your claims. Everyone seems to think they've got a ragingly high IQ, but here's a breakdown of what the percentages should be. http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html Someone with an IQ of 160 should only happen about one in 31,560 people.

I'm also very, very skeptical of the members.shaw.ca site. My WISC score was 17 points lower than what the chart tells me. That's a pretty huge difference.

 

[mikedc813]

You'd be amazed by how "average" med students' SAT scores were I'd bet.

 

[Hoberto]

wow, you've got an unjustifiably high opinion of premeds and physicians. Doctors aren't that smart.

Right on. I think it is incredible the prevailing notion on this board that doctors are generally more smart than those in other professions.

 

[DrHopeless]

nice bell curve there.

Except for us deviances at the <1200

 

[KingTutATL]

come to GA. we have the lowest SAT score in the nation because its mandatory to take it. i think the SAT average is like a 1030?? i got a 670 on the math section and was in the 97th percentile lol. verbal is hard, but you can figure out some of the tricks they use to write the question. you can't bring your opinion into the reading comprehension. they don't want that. all they want is for you to take what you know from the study. the straight up facts. that iq distribution chart doesn't make sense to me. If the average person has an iq of 100 shouldn't be around a 1:1 ratio? And the rarity of a person having an iq of 1 can't be 1:1.

 

[psipsina]

I got a 1250, but had a reallly realllly bad day, Mom (who has psych issues) booted me out of the house the night before, I slept in a sleeping bag on a friends floor and they drove me in. Also didn't study, I didn't know that people did that?? Anyway, I think its bogus to say a person's IQ correlates to their SAT score, or any other standardized test. Some people standardize test better than others, doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence. Take for example my husband who got an 800 on his verbal but a 300 on his math, not a good composite score, but his IQ is 165. I also have a brilliant friend who just spazzes on standardized tests, she only got aa 22 on her MCAT but is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Bill_H_Pike]

Dang, the bell curve is broken !!!!

 

[DrBowtie]

Considering how the mean is around 1350 the average SDNer is in the 93%ile IIRC.

 

[Pose]

I never once touched math in high school, but I managed a 25 on the ACT with a few months skimming books. Not the best, but that puts me in the top 25%...I was only aiming for a 21 or so on the mathematics section. Unfortunately, I'll be annoying myself with wanting to do better for months to come...I'm ungrateful sometimes.

 

[bwells46]

What's the average SAT score of pre-meds here. I'm willing to bet 1500+

Actually, I'd bet that the average SAT scores of math and engineering students would be higher than your average pre-med.

Besides, I'd wager that your SAT score has little to do with what kind of doctor you'll be. Don't get hung up on numbers.

 

[Centinel]

Actually, I'd bet that the average SAT scores of math and engineering students would be higher than your average pre-med.

Besides, I'd wager that your SAT score has little to do with what kind of doctor you'll be. Don't get hung up on numbers.

Actually, SAT score correlates with MCAT, which correlates with Board scores, which correlate with residency placement, which ultimately impacts what (sub)specialty you can enter.



OK, in reality I agree with and understand what you're trying to say (there are other factors that determine the quality of doctor that you will be).

 

[jammin06]

1500 here. Verbal = 700, Math = 800.
Now that the new SAT's are out of 2400, my children and grandchildren will probably think I am a ****** or something

add to the fact that in only a few years, we'll be the old farts who talk about the golden days....."Back in my day, we took the MCAT on actual paper" *students gasp*

 

[gujuDoc]

add to the fact that in only a few years, we'll be the old farts who talk about the golden days....."Back in my day, we took the MCAT on actual paper" *students gasp*

So true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bwells46]

Actually, SAT score correlates with MCAT, which correlates with Board scores, which correlate with residency placement, which ultimately impacts what (sub)specialty you can enter.

OK, in reality I agree with and understand what you're trying to say (there are other factors that determine the quality of doctor that you will be).

I'm aware of the correlation. However, some of the brightest physicians and scientists of the past century didn't do too well in school or on standardized tests. I'm just saying that test scores are probably not the best predictor.

 

[frostynorthwind]

LOL, so I take it people really did study for the SAT... I didn't and my 1370 probably reflects that. I just pray to God that my 30T and 3.9 GPA will get me in somewhere (away from Dorothy and the wonderful land of Oz).

I have a strong antipathy for standardized exams... boooo. 👎

 

[gujuDoc]

Actually, SAT score correlates with MCAT, which correlates with Board scores, which correlate with residency placement, which ultimately impacts what (sub)specialty you can enter.



OK, in reality I agree with and understand what you're trying to say (there are other factors that determine the quality of doctor that you will be).

While there is a correlation, it is nowhere near 1. So I don't put much stock into making such correlations. They are ridiculous. I think a person just needs to do whatever they can to get their score to a decent score and stop worrying about correlating every single little thing. The only real correlation that matters when it comes time to MCAT is that of the practice tests to the real test, because that unlike the correlation between SAT and MCAT is very very very very close to 1.

 

[gujuDoc]

LOL, so I take it people really did study for the SAT... I didn't and my 1370 probably reflects that. I just pray to God that my 30T and 3.9 GPA will get me in somewhere (away from Dorothy and the wonderful land of Oz).

I have a strong antipathy for standardized exams... boooo. 👎

You'll get in somewhere. Stop stressing. Just make sure the rest of your app is strong.

 

[gotgame83]

1310 back in 2001. Yea, its funnie i didnt even think about studying for the SAT but im putting in hours everyday for the mcat.

 

[MoosePilot]

While there is a correlation, it is nowhere near 1. So I don't put much stock into making such correlations. They are ridiculous. I think a person just needs to do whatever they can to get their score to a decent score and stop worrying about correlating every single little thing. The only real correlation that matters when it comes time to MCAT is that of the practice tests to the real test, because that unlike the correlation between SAT and MCAT is very very very very close to 1.

Imagine the correlation between soldiers who've gone to Iraq and those that have been killed. It doesn't even approach 1, but is still a positive correlation that would prompt many people on this board to avoid going to Iraq.

A correlation doesn't have to be near 1 to be useful.

 

[gujuDoc]

Imagine the correlation between soldiers who've gone to Iraq and those that have been killed. It doesn't even approach 1, but is still a positive correlation that would prompt many people on this board to avoid going to Iraq.

A correlation doesn't have to be near 1 to be useful.

First off that is the poorest example that you could give. Secondly, I disagree with you but refuse to argue with you because this has already been argued to death in the spring semester.

Thirdly, people who keep trying to correlate every single thing all the time are wasting their time. Because at the end of the day there will be some people with 27-32 and others with 33-43 MCAT ranges, and then there will be a few with 23-26 ranges who were accepted to med school and practicing physicians. So its moot point.

Also, even if there is a positive correlation there are several people who don't really correlate between their SAT and MCAT scores because they may have had low scores due to improper lack of study skills and test taking skills as a youth, but who admittedly turned around in college or upon returning to college many years later (nontrads apply to this one) that end up doing real well on the MCAT but may not have done well on the SAT much less taken it.

I could list a few more things, but I'm not arguing this with you.

I think making correlations rather then focusing on what's important at the moment, is useless waste of time.

 

[MoosePilot]

First off that is the poorest example that you could give. Secondly, I disagree with you but refuse to argue with you because this has already been argued to death in the spring semester.

Thirdly, people who keep trying to correlate every single thing all the time are wasting their time. Because at the end of the day there will be some people with 27-32 and others with 33-43 MCAT ranges, and then there will be a few with 23-26 ranges who were accepted to med school and practicing physicians. So its moot point.

Also, even if there is a positive correlation there are several people who don't really correlate between their SAT and MCAT scores because they may have had low scores due to improper lack of study skills and test taking skills as a youth, but who admittedly turned around in college or upon returning to college many years later (nontrads apply to this one) that end up doing real well on the MCAT but may not have done well on the SAT much less taken it.

I could list a few more things, but I'm not arguing this with you.

I think making correlations rather then focusing on what's important at the moment, is useless waste of time.

Gujudoc, let's get one thing straight right away. You are arguing or you wouldn't have responded. What's the point of arguing, but pretending you're not?

Secondly, correlations are about large groups of data, not about individuals. I'm not claiming that any single person is going to do crappy on the MCAT, on USMLE, or in med school in general, because of a score they got on a standardized test in High School. I am saying that a positive correlation shows that there is a trend for people who do poorly on one test to do poorly on others. It's not irreversible and if you recognize it, you're more likely to be able to prepare and combat it. I'm about realism and realistic preparation, not pessimism, attacks, or negativity. If we disregard these correlations, we do a disservice to people who may need additional work in order to reverse past trends in their scores.

Preparing well and working hard *are* what are important, but being informed is part of that. I won't put up with misinformation for the purpose of making people feel good about their chances when that might give them false confidence and detract from the sure knowledge that they need to do something different to prepare for an upcoming test than they did for previous tests that didn't go well, whether that's a stronger focus on school, a lot of self study, or a commercial test prep course.

P.S. What's wrong with my analogy? I could have said not all scary dogs bite, but a lot of people avoid them just in case. I could have said not all college graduates make more than non-grads, but the correlation keeps our schools full. I could say that some low GPA students get into med school anyway, but the correlation between high GPA and being admitted keeps pre-meds focused on their grades. Pick your analogy, but just because a correlation isn't 1 doesn't mean it's not good info.

 

[gujuDoc]

Gujudoc, let's get one thing straight right away. You are arguing or you wouldn't have responded. What's the point of arguing, but pretending you're not?

Secondly, correlations are about large groups of data, not about individuals. I'm not claiming that any single person is going to do crappy on the MCAT, on USMLE, or in med school in general, because of a score they got on a standardized test in High School. I am saying that a positive correlation shows that there is a trend for people who do poorly on one test to do poorly on others. It's not irreversible and if you recognize it, you're more likely to be able to prepare and combat it. I'm about realism and realistic preparation, not pessimism, attacks, or negativity. If we disregard these correlations, we do a disservice to people who may need additional work in order to reverse past trends in their scores.

Preparing well and working hard *are* what are important, but being informed is part of that. I won't put up with misinformation for the purpose of making people feel good about their chances when that might give them false confidence and detract from the sure knowledge that they need to do something different to prepare for an upcoming test than they did for previous tests that didn't go well, whether that's a stronger focus on school, a lot of self study, or a commercial test prep course.

P.S. What's wrong with my analogy? I could have said not all scary dogs bite, but a lot of people avoid them just in case. I could have said not all college graduates make more than non-grads, but the correlation keeps our schools full. I could say that some low GPA students get into med school anyway, but the correlation between high GPA and being admitted keeps pre-meds focused on their grades. Pick your analogy, but just because a correlation isn't 1 doesn't mean it's not good info.

Not commenting on the analogy. Just think that you could have used a better example then that particular one. As for everything else, thanks for clarifying. When you put it the way you did in this particular post, I agree with you. However, I suppose the original post and the other post made by the other poster sounded like it came off in a different manner. But yes, put in this much more clear meaning of what you are getting at, I agree.

 

[MoosePilot]

Not commenting on the analogy. Just think that you could have used a better example then that particular one. As for everything else, thanks for clarifying. When you put it the way you did in this particular post, I agree with you. However, I suppose the original post and the other post made by the other poster sounded like it came off in a different manner. But yes, put in this much more clear meaning of what you are getting at, I agree.

I figured you had thought I was attacking folks all along. I'm not. I'm trying to take the somewhat hard road of being honest, which comes out as mean. I think that's more helpful.

 

[gujuDoc]

I figured you had thought I was attacking folks all along. I'm not. I'm trying to take the somewhat hard road of being honest, which comes out as mean. I think that's more helpful.

That makes more sense. I guess sometimes these boards don't do justice to getting across what you actually mean. But when you put it the way you put it in the post above, it makes more sense and I am in total agreement. No hard feelings. 🙂 😉 😛