Scored that can predict...

[drboris]

---

Members don't see this ad.

What scores, if any, predict how well a student will adjust to clinical medicine. Are the MCATs are good predictor, boards, undergrad GPA, med school grades??

Does a particular section of the MCAT correlate into a specific clinical skill or personality?

 

[gwyn779]

Absolutely none of them. Multiple choice exams have very little to do with how people function and interact.

 

[deleted21609]

Absolutely none of them. Multiple choice exams have very little to do with how people function and interact.

That's just a lie the pro-racist-admissions lobby wants you to believe.

 

[Koppertone]

I can think of lots of people who would be great doctors (on an interaction level) but who didn't do good on MCATs and hence couldn't get in. All I can say is that if you do good on the MCAT that's great, but don't expect it to make life any easier on you in medicine.

 

[MichiMO]

There is a correlation between GPA and MCAT and medical students performace during the first two years of medical school. However, that correlation greatly decreases in the third and fourth years. There is no statistical correlation between the numbers and clinical performance...this is not something made up by "pro-racist-admissions lobbies"

 

[SocialistMD]

If you are talking in terms of grades, I think the correlation may be hit or miss based on evaluations and the emphasis placed on knowledge. If you are a booksmart person, you will still do well on your end of rotation shelf exam. That being said, you could still be a terrible clinician if you don't know what you are looking for or how to find it. The ability to integrate what you find into what you know is an art in which, like information retaining, some people have a more natural ability than others. Each will come with time, but just because you are a rock star or a marginal passer in the first two years doesn't mean that's how it will be in the latter two.

 

[xaelia]

I thought I recalled one of the articles on the AMCAS website regarding MCAT predictive value placing the verbal score as the best predictor of success in preclinical years and clinical rotations.

 

[hans19]

MCATS scores do not necessarily correlate with USMLE scores.
And for that matter USMLE scores don't necessarily correlate with clinical skills or bedside manner.

There was a resident in a TOP 10 IM program who was a junior AOA was reputed to have a Step 1 in the 260's, who got fired b/c s/he was incompetent.

Dr. Boris, try not to worry about this too much as there is no strong correlation. If you did poorly in undergrad, it doesn't mean you will do poorly in medschool. If you did well in undergrad its no guarantee you will succeed in med school. Just try to do the best you can, thats all you really can do. The rest should take care of itself. 🙂

Hans

 

[sophiejane]

I thought I recalled one of the articles on the AMCAS website regarding MCAT predictive value placing the verbal score as the best predictor of success in preclinical years and clinical rotations.

Haa!! That is hilarious. You are kidding, right?

Who publishes this stuff?

The MCAT means very, very little once you get to medical school. There are people in my class who got 33s on the MCAT who are struggling, and a few of us in the mid-20s who are doing just fine.

It is even less of a predictor of your clinical skills. In fact, some of the least book-smart people can become the best clinicians.

No matter what is predicted, you are the only one in control of how you do.

 

[Jaded Soul]

Haa!! That is hilarious. You are kidding, right?

Who publishes this stuff?

The MCAT means very, very little once you get to medical school. There are people in my class who got 33s on the MCAT who are struggling, and a few of us in the mid-20s who are doing just fine.

It is even less of a predictor of your clinical skills. In fact, some of the least book-smart people can become the best clinicians.

No matter what is predicted, you are the only one in control of how you do.

Can't comment on the study since I can't get the full article, but here's something that looked at this and concluded that verbal score might predict clinical performance.

Academic Medicine. 71(2):176-80, 1996 Feb

Here's another article looking at some of what interested the OP. Again, can't comment on it because I can't get the full text right now.

Teach Learn Med. 2002 Winter;14(1):34-42

 

[sophiejane]

My bad--I just reread the post and realized it was just the Verbal score they were talking about. That actually does make a little more sense, because that deals with how you solve problems and how you interpret language, communication, etc.

 

[Persistence101]

I thought I recalled one of the articles on the AMCAS website regarding MCAT predictive value placing the verbal score as the best predictor of success in preclinical years and clinical rotations.

I don't believe this. Have they actually been able to scientifically prove this point? The only thing I believe is that the verbal section is biased against ESL students.

 

[Gleevec]

I thought I recalled one of the articles on the AMCAS website regarding MCAT predictive value placing the verbal score as the best predictor of success in preclinical years and clinical rotations.

I thought that article said of the 3 MCAT sections, verbal was slightly more significant than the other two, but none of the three were very good predictors at all?

 

[Persistence101]

I thought that article said of the 3 MCAT sections, verbal was slightly more significant than the other two, but none of the three were very good predictors at all?

thank you

 

[Jalby]

A bit late but I read the article on AAMC website that says verbal is the biggest predictor on how well you will do in the 3rd year and step II.

 

[mooklyster]

No grades anywhere will absolutely predict how you will do in clinical rotations/dealing with live patients. There are some smart sons of a guns in my med class, but they do not seem to be able to carry a normal conversation. I think smarts helps in remembering certian things, but how you interact w/ people and put it all together becomes paramount in my humble opinion. Some of the best doctors in the world will tell you that they barely squeeked into med school, and managed to average their way through the first two years until they flourished in years 3 and 4.

 

[deleted21609]

I don't believe this. Have they actually been able to scientifically prove this point? The only thing I believe is that the verbal section is biased against ESL students.

Do you even know what bias means?

My friend goes to school in Puerto Rico and has never moaned once that the clinics are biased against him because those darned PR's keep speaking Spanish. You also never hear a Chinese or Russian speaker whine about having exams in English- in the USA! Quit crying.

 

[Mirror Form]

There is no statistical correlation between the numbers and clinical performance...this is not something made up by "pro-racist-admissions lobbies"

I find that very hard to believe. The same people who got honors during first and second year at my med school are frequently the same people getting honors in third year as well. It's true that third year isn't just about regurgitating facts and then forgetting them like during MS I/II year. In the clinic you need to be able to understand and apply the knowledge, plus get along well with your team. However, it's still very important to work hard, read a lot, and memorize the material. The same people who work hard and learn quickly that did well MS I/II year will likely also do well MS III year too.

 

[sophiejane]

"The same people who got honors during first and second year at my med school are frequently the same people getting honors in third year as well."

Why, you must be an honor student, defending your honor. 😉

If there IS a place where some of the rigid grade hierarchy of years 1 and 2 seems to break down, it's on the wards. True, some of the top students will stay there, but the ones without the common sense and ability to problem solve on the spot seem to struggle a little more on the wards, while the ones who think quick on their feet and have people smarts have a chance to shine there.

 

[praying4MD]

If you are talking in terms of grades, I think the correlation may be hit or miss based on evaluations and the emphasis placed on knowledge. If you are a booksmart person, you will still do well on your end of rotation shelf exam. That being said, you could still be a terrible clinician if you don't know what you are looking for or how to find it. The ability to integrate what you find into what you know is an art in which, like information retaining, some people have a more natural ability than others. Each will come with time, but just because you are a rock star or a marginal passer in the first two years doesn't mean that's how it will be in the latter two.

True... But being booksmart doesn't hurt either-- particularly on boards and when trying to impress upper levels on the wards. You may have the potential to be a fantastic clinician, but if you are held back by the inability to do well on boards, then it does you absolutely no good anyway.

It's sad, but it's also the truth of the matter.

 

[MichiMO]

I find that very hard to believe. The same people who got honors during first and second year at my med school are frequently the same people getting honors in third year as well. It's true that third year isn't just about regurgitating facts and then forgetting them like during MS I/II year. In the clinic you need to be able to understand and apply the knowledge, plus get along well with your team. However, it's still very important to work hard, read a lot, and memorize the material. The same people who work hard and learn quickly that did well MS I/II year will likely also do well MS III year too.

I would agree with you that people who do well during MSI and II would be likely to do well during clinicals because from what I have heard a lot of your marks during MSIII have to do with how hard you work....and I think we all know that grades from MSI/II most strongly correlate with hard work vs. raw "intelligence."
However, the numbers I was talking about were pre-med GPA and MCAT and the statistical correlation between these numbers and student performance breaks down in the 3rd year of medical school. This doesn't mean that people who have a good pre-med GPA, MCAT, and MSI/II performance won't do well in third year. It just means that those with good pre-med GPA and MCAT won't necessarily do well in 3rd year, whereas they are fairly likely to do well in MSI and MSII. These things are just generalizations and do not necessarily apply to individuals.
I think people are interested in these things for one of two reasons: 1)To try to provide reassurance that they will do well in 3rd year because either 1. They don't have good numbers, but during 3rd year this doesn't matter anymore or 2. They do have good numbers and this is good proof that they will continue to do well
The second reason people are interested in these things is to try to provide proof that a certain group of students with lower entrance MCAT/GPA's do or do not belong in medical school...because if lower numbers correlate with inferior clinical performance then this can be used to strengthen anti-affirmative action arguments whereas if lower numbers do not correlate with clinical performance, then this can be used to counter anti-affirmative action agruments.

In my opinion, it is all a little ridiculous and everyone should stop obsessing over it.

 

[cocoabutter]

I would agree with you that people who do well during MSI and II would be likely to do well during clinicals because from what I have heard a lot of your marks during MSIII have to do with how hard you work....and I think we all know that grades from MSI/II most strongly correlate with hard work vs. raw "intelligence."
However, the numbers I was talking about were pre-med GPA and MCAT and the statistical correlation between these numbers and student performance breaks down in the 3rd year of medical school. This doesn't mean that people who have a good pre-med GPA, MCAT, and MSI/II performance won't do well in third year. It just means that those with good pre-med GPA and MCAT won't necessarily do well in 3rd year, whereas they are fairly likely to do well in MSI and MSII. These things are just generalizations and do not necessarily apply to individuals.
I think people are interested in these things for one of two reasons: 1)To try to provide reassurance that they will do well in 3rd year because either 1. They don't have good numbers, but during 3rd year this doesn't matter anymore or 2. They do have good numbers and this is good proof that they will continue to do well
The second reason people are interested in these things is to try to provide proof that a certain group of students with lower entrance MCAT/GPA's do or do not belong in medical school...because if lower numbers correlate with inferior clinical performance then this can be used to strengthen anti-affirmative action arguments whereas if lower numbers do not correlate with clinical performance, then this can be used to counter anti-affirmative action agruments.

In my opinion, it is all a little ridiculous and everyone should stop obsessing over it.

Agreed!