Should no MCAT = no MD?

[akuko2]

Hey everyone, just a random question I have been thinking about. If this belongs in another section I apologize!

The medical school I am going to attend this fall offers a couple programs that do not require the MCAT, and guarantee medical school acceptance in exchange for other factors ( majoring in liberal arts while taking MD school requirements, BS/MD, etc). I did not know about these programs until after their deadlines and was very disappointed that I wasn't able to apply, but ended up forgetting about it and going the traditional route. Thankfully I did well enough to get into my school of choice, but now I hear some of my undergrad classmates gripe about how they did not do well enough on the MCAT and they frequently say, "The MCAT isn't a great measure of who can be a great physician."

I just shut my mouth, but in my head I wonder if that is really true. Do you think that the MCAT should be required to enter an MD school? The way I think about it is that if you can not do well on the MCAT, how are you going to succeed on STEP 1 or any other exam in medical school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Flamen04]

My school has one of those programs. The person with the highest step 1 score in my class is a student that came in from one of those programs. I'm fairly certain that while MCAT has some predictive ability on how one will succeed in medical school, it is by no means the ONLY way to measure intelligence.

As for your high MCAT score:

 

[ERDOC555]

Hey everyone, just a random question I have been thinking about. If this belongs in another section I apologize!

The medical school I am going to attend this fall offers a couple programs that do not require the MCAT, and guarantee medical school acceptance in exchange for other factors ( majoring in liberal arts while taking MD school requirements, BS/MD, etc). I did not know about these programs until after their deadlines and was very disappointed that I wasn't able to apply, but ended up forgetting about it and going the traditional route. Thankfully I did well enough to get into my school of choice, but now I hear some of my undergrad classmates gripe about how they did not do well enough on the MCAT and they frequently say, "The MCAT isn't a great measure of who can be a great physician."

I just shut my mouth, because I do not want to boast or anything, but in my head I wonder if that is really true. Do you think that the MCAT should be required to enter an MD school? The way I think about it is that if you can not do well on the MCAT, how are you going to succeed on STEP 1 or any other exam in medical school?

I agree with you. Yes people with low MCATs can and do get in each year, and a lot actually end up in residency, but I personally think that the minimal MCAT standards these combined programs offer are pretty low. I think MCAT shows a lot about both intelligence and work ethic. I would rather have a system with the top scorers than those who consistently hit the middle of the pack. Same for Step 1. It's hard to imagine that MCAT, Step 1, and ability to learn all the relevant material for your specialty have no correlation...

It's hard to imagine that geniuses who get into these joint programs can't break a 30 or 508 (oftentimes the bar is much much lower)...

For the record, I think the vast majority of BS/MD acceptances are incredibly strong applicants who will do very well. I am always surprised by the very few outliers who can't seem to meet the minimum qualifications despite being such great high school applicants.

 

[wholeheartedly]

As someone who has worked in a teaching hospital for 8 years, I'm going to say that performance on exams doesn't seem to have a great correlation with being a good physician. These are great programs here so Step scores are higher, but I've seen the gamut from incredibly book smart and excellent as a physician to really book smart but can't make eye contact, read body language, or talk to a patient. There are so many other skills that come into play to actually practice well.

If adcoms want to use other factors at the exclusion of the MCAT, that's their deal and I'm fine with it.

 

[Cytarabine]

MCAT isn't a licensing exam. Schools can use whatever criteria they want to choose their students

also

<----Pre-allo that-a-way

 

[buonassezia]

We have some such students and many of them crush the Boards and end up in the top of the class. Yes, it is probably helpful having the experience of studying for a big comprehensive exam, but not having that experience doesn't seem to hold back a lot of great people.

It's not that these people COULDN'T succeed at the MCAT, as you say-- they were just excused from it. That is not the same thing. Don't you think that their credentials, which reassured the school enough to excuse them from the MCAT, were probably stunning? They probably demonstrated excellent test taking and academic ability through other metrics. Don't you think these people must have been so amazing that the school had no questions about their ability to succeed in medical school and at the MCAT, such that they didn't even require it of them? They could certainly have required it if they wanted to or felt it necessary.

Med schools aren't stupid and aren't about to take huge risks on questionable candidates when they could have their pick of the litter these days. These early admits are not lunkheads who snuck in under the radar. (The school is actually taking the bet that they would make TOO good of candidates by the time the regular admissions cycle rolls around, and ought to be snapped up early. If they weren't ultimately successful the program would've ended long ago).

Also, there are even step exams which do not seem to have amazing correlation with ability to excel at clinical work. We just tell ourselves that good scores must be necessary, because we want to justify being proud of our good scores. Sure, there's some correlation, but most MCAT material is really very irrelevant. I know it's tempting to feel better about yourself by questioning your classmates right now at a scary, crucial crossroads, but this defensiveness is misplaced. Your classmates will be great, and you're welcome to feel lofty and ahead, but it won't last long. You'll see.

 

[Averagemanboy]

Hey everyone, just a random question I have been thinking about. If this belongs in another section I apologize!

The medical school I am going to attend this fall offers a couple programs that do not require the MCAT, and guarantee medical school acceptance in exchange for other factors ( majoring in liberal arts while taking MD school requirements, BS/MD, etc). I did not know about these programs until after their deadlines and was very disappointed that I wasn't able to apply, but ended up forgetting about it and going the traditional route. Thankfully I did well enough to get into my school of choice, but now I hear some of my undergrad classmates gripe about how they did not do well enough on the MCAT and they frequently say, "The MCAT isn't a great measure of who can be a great physician."

I just shut my mouth, because I do not want to boast or anything, but in my head I wonder if that is really true. Do you think that the MCAT should be required to enter an MD school? The way I think about it is that if you can not do well on the MCAT, how are you going to succeed on STEP 1 or any other exam in medical school?

Where when how do I take advantage of these types of programs as a pre-med???

 

[DrDarce]

I'd much rather take the MCAT than major in liberal arts. But to answer your question, schools can accept whoever they want it's on their reputation

 

[buonassezia]

I'd much rather take the MCAT than major in liberal arts. But to answer your question, schools can accept whoever they want it's on their reputation

Exactly. Schools care a lot about their reputations and if these people were flunking Step 1 and becoming subpar clinicians, the program would've ended long ago, rather than expanded (which it did).

 

[sliceofbread136]

Please take this crap to pre-allo

 

[buonassezia]

Seriously

 

[akuko2]

Thanks for the replies, I didn't put this in pre-allo, because I wanted the opinion of medical school students. Obviously, most pre-meds would be pro-programs such as these, which is why I wanted y'alls opinion.

I also did not mean to criticize other applicants if any of you felt that the OP carried that tone, just wanted to discuss.

And @Averagemanboy search for early assurance programs to medical school, I know that Ichan and Tulane SOM both offer them but I am sure there are other places as well, good luck!

 

[Pacna]

I have no issue with a school admitting students based on whatever criteria they see fit. As previously discussed, the MCAT appears to be a decent metric for performance. Given its prevalence, I think it's more than reasonable to use when comparing candidates. I see no reason why using another metric would necessarily be any less valid.

 

[varens1]

We have some such students and many of them crush the Boards and end up in the top of the class. Yes, it is probably helpful having the experience of studying for a big comprehensive exam, but not having that experience doesn't seem to hold back a lot of great people.

It's not that these people COULDN'T succeed at the MCAT, as you say-- they were just excused from it. That is not the same thing. Don't you think that their credentials, which reassured the school enough to excuse them from the MCAT, were probably stunning? They probably demonstrated excellent test taking and academic ability through other metrics. Don't you think these people must have been so amazing that the school had no questions about their ability to succeed in medical school and at the MCAT, such that they didn't even require it of them? They could certainly have required it if they wanted to or felt it necessary.

Med schools aren't stupid and aren't about to take huge risks on questionable candidates when they could have their pick of the litter these days. These early admits are not lunkheads who snuck in under the radar. (The school is actually taking the bet that they would make TOO good of candidates by the time the regular admissions cycle rolls around, and ought to be snapped up early. If they weren't ultimately successful the program would've ended long ago).

Also, there are even step exams which do not seem to have amazing correlation with ability to excel at clinical work. We just tell ourselves that good scores must be necessary, because we want to justify being proud of our good scores. Sure, there's some correlation, but most MCAT material is really very irrelevant. I know it's tempting to feel better about yourself by questioning your classmates right now at a scary, crucial crossroads, but this defensiveness is misplaced. Your classmates will be great, and you're welcome to feel lofty and ahead, but it won't last long. You'll see.

I wanted to write something about this post but you pretty much covered everything I would have potentially said. The mcat is a test that has no relevance whatsoever with medicine. It's just out there to limit the amount of people who get into medicine each year. No more no less. A lot of people with average or even below average mcat ended becoming excellent doctors. The mcat only tells your ability to take a stupid test and get a high score.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[varens1]

Seems like verbal reasoning is the section of choice when it comes to judging students' individual section score. I have always wondered how the H in the world verbal reasoning correlate to anything medically related ? How does doing well in verbal can tell that you're going to do well in med school ?? Most people who score high in that section barely even resd the passages. This discussion is getting me too agitated.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Terry Toma]

To paraphrase your question: Should a rule be made to regulate individual med schools' admissions methods based on a random premed's unsubstantiated guess as to what kinds of students maybe might not do so well on STEP 1?

I'm going to say no, that probably shouldn't happen.

 

[Scumbag_Steve]

.

 

[kmp0410]

Seems like verbal reasoning is the section of choice when it comes to judging students' individual section score. I have always wondered how the H in the world verbal reasoning correlate to anything medically related ? How does doing well in verbal can tell that you're going to do well in med school ?? Most people who score high in that section barely even resd the passages. This discussion is getting me too agitated.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Because the verbal section is about comprehension and critical thinking. As is most of the test. The MCAT is a thinking test more so than a knowledge test.

Standardized tests as a whole aren't the only metric, but they are one of them. Its unfortunate that it becomes the one people look at the most, but I mean I get it. How the heck are you suppose to tell how good of a doctor someone will become? It's a measure of knowledge and critical thinking, both important skills for a doctor. Same thing for STEP 1. When measuring people from different schools across the country, its helpful to have something standard to differentiate. Theres obviously not enough time or resources to interview everybody. So Step 1 becomes important, and since I think there is some correlation between STEP 1 and MCAT, the MCAT becomes important. Also, same thing. There's way more students with 3.7's and volunteer work out there then there are med school seats. Someone who can't attain a certain score on the MCAT has a deficiency somewhere that might show itself somewhere. I find it amazing that someone can have a 3.7+ and then score <25 on the MCAT but that's another conversation.

For the OP: I think those schools should be free to do as they please. If they feel like they are getting the right students without the MCAT then that is completely their choice. If their STEP scores were low or their match rates were low, then that might be something they should look at. Schools should be free to pick their candidates as they wish, most of them just use the MCAT. After all the goal is to pick the best students.

 

[deleted158872]

Hey everyone, just a random question I have been thinking about. If this belongs in another section I apologize!

The medical school I am going to attend this fall offers a couple programs that do not require the MCAT, and guarantee medical school acceptance in exchange for other factors ( majoring in liberal arts while taking MD school requirements, BS/MD, etc). I did not know about these programs until after their deadlines and was very disappointed that I wasn't able to apply, but ended up forgetting about it and going the traditional route. Thankfully I did well enough to get into my school of choice, but now I hear some of my undergrad classmates gripe about how they did not do well enough on the MCAT and they frequently say, "The MCAT isn't a great measure of who can be a great physician."

I just shut my mouth, but in my head I wonder if that is really true. Do you think that the MCAT should be required to enter an MD school? The way I think about it is that if you can not do well on the MCAT, how are you going to succeed on STEP 1 or any other exam in medical school?

yes, it should.
while tests don't indicate actual success (although there are data indicating correlation between MCAT and USMLE scores), there needs to be a fair, universal standard in place to evaluate applicants.
i can't think of a better test than the standardized MCAT, since college grades aren't reliable (state/public vs. private/Ivy, for example, or hard science major vs. non-science major).

 

[wholeheartedly]

moving to pre allo.

 

[allantois]

What's the alternative - cronyism?

 

[Pacna]

yes, it should.
while tests don't indicate actual success (although there are data indicating correlation between MCAT and USMLE scores), there needs to be a fair, universal standard in place to evaluate applicants.
i can't think of a better test than the standardized MCAT, since college grades aren't reliable (state/public vs. private/Ivy, for example, or hard science major vs. non-science major).

A fair, universal standard to evaluate applicants? Like a many-times-blinded application process + committee decision?

Point: If you think the MCAT is the best standard, that's fine. Argue for that at your institution. Don't impose your lack of imagination on other schools.

 

[cyanide12345678]

The statement that "if you can't do well on the mcat, how can you do well on the USMLE's" is a flawed statement. There is little to no correlation between the two. Some people like to say that the verbal comprehension part has the best correlation with USMLE scores and med school performance, but I had a 8 in my verbal and >99th percentile board scores in my USMLEs

 

[Med Ed]

Hey everyone, just a random question I have been thinking about. If this belongs in another section I apologize!

The medical school I am going to attend this fall offers a couple programs that do not require the MCAT, and guarantee medical school acceptance in exchange for other factors ( majoring in liberal arts while taking MD school requirements, BS/MD, etc). I did not know about these programs until after their deadlines and was very disappointed that I wasn't able to apply, but ended up forgetting about it and going the traditional route. Thankfully I did well enough to get into my school of choice, but now I hear some of my undergrad classmates gripe about how they did not do well enough on the MCAT and they frequently say, "The MCAT isn't a great measure of who can be a great physician."

I just shut my mouth, but in my head I wonder if that is really true. Do you think that the MCAT should be required to enter an MD school? The way I think about it is that if you can not do well on the MCAT, how are you going to succeed on STEP 1 or any other exam in medical school?

Programs like Mt. Sinai's FlexMed do not require the MCAT, but they do look at SAT scores. In essence they substitute one standardized test score for another.

 

[chillaxbro]

Why do they want people with liberal arts major? Because you know about Ancient Roman history, you are a better doctor? How is that any better of an indicator than MCAT?

"We want well rounded applicants"
OH YEAH DO YOU?

 

[trini818]

My summer student this past year was in a BS/MD program at a top 20 school. Very smart and motivated. I have no doubt that he will succeed in medical school and I believe that he will probably be at the top of his class. I will admit that he was actually one of the people I let review my application. He was very helpful.

 

[ERDOC555]

Why do they want people with liberal arts major? Because you know about Ancient Roman history, you are a better doctor? How is that any better of an indicator than MCAT?

"We want well rounded applicants"
OH YEAH DO YOU?

I agree with you quite a bit! I like the idea of taking interesting well rounded people, but the idea that a liberal arts major accomplishes that end is ludicrous.

Controversial opinion time:
I'll also add copious volunteering to the med school "requirement list" as something that is meaningless. The number of hours or service projects completed tells us nothing about the service orientation of the person. Anyone, including the most selfish person, can volunteer in copious amounts to look good on paper. I know caring people who volunteered only 100-200 hours over 4 years who care much more than people with over 1000+ hours. Unfortunately it's a game and I think it's a shame that volunteer hours are a box to check for med school admissions.

Shadowing is relevant and important to understanding what doctors actually do, non-clinical volunteering is personal and shouldn't have a place in med school admissions.

 

[IslandStyle808]

The statement that "if you can't do well on the mcat, how can you do well on the USMLE's" is a flawed statement. There is little to no correlation between the two. Some people like to say that the verbal comprehension part has the best correlation with USMLE scores and med school performance, but I had a 8 in my verbal and >99th percentile board scores in my USMLEs

It's propaganda by medical schools who think verbal has the best correlation. There are so many studies that show it is the worst predictor of USMLE success.

 

[piii]

I'm very thankful we have the MCAT. It is an (almost) object measure when GPAs and institutional difficulty vary so much. Without the MCAT, all the kids from top schools would be getting in over the kids from unknown schools. It's also a barrier to keep people out who cheated all throughout college and have amazing GPAs because of it.

 

[ERDOC555]

It's propaganda by medical schools who think verbal has the best correlation. There are so many studies that show it is the worst predictor of USMLE success.

I think the strongest correlation is between the Biological Sciences section and Step 1

Also I bet the correlation is much stronger than any one study could pick up on. There is a huge "F-it effect" in which brilliant students who have no intention of doing Ortho/ENT/IR etc choose not to destroy themselves trying to get a 250+. These students could if they wanted to, but it's simply not worth it when they know they want to do Peds, Family Practice, or Psych.

I bet the vast majority of 95th+ percentile MCAT students could slay step 1 if they all tried their hardest. Some wouldn't but many could.
However, not nearly as many 75th percentile MCAT students could attain a 250 even if they worked just as hard. Some would, but many would not.

Smart people who prepare for standardized tests will consistently do well on standardized tests. That's just part of intelligence. High SATs are likely to have high MCATS and are likely to have high Step 1s and probably high grades as well if they try.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I think the strongest correlation is between the Biological Sciences section and Step 1

Also I bet the correlation is much stronger than any one study could pick up on. There is a huge "F-it effect" in which brilliant students who have no intention of doing Ortho/ENT/IR etc choose not to destroy themselves trying to get a 250+. These students could if they wanted to, but it's simply not worth it when they know they want to do Peds, Family Practice, or Psych.

I bet the vast majority of 95th+ percentile MCAT students could slay step 1 if they all tried their hardest. Some wouldn't but many could.
However, not nearly as many 75th percentile MCAT students could attain a 250 even if they worked just as hard. Some would, but many would not.

Smart people who prepare for standardized tests will consistently do well on standardized tests. That's just part of intelligence. High SATs are likely to have high MCATS and are likely to have high Step 1s and probably high grades as well if they try.

I am the kind of person who sees all these tests as kind of different entities. There are some who do mediocre on their SAT and score well on the MCAT. There are also those who don't score well on the MCAT, but those who score well in the USMLE. The verbal probably goes in the wrong direction in terms of how it evaluates students based on critical thinking ability, hence the low correlation. It is tough to say how strong the correlation really is, because those students who didn't have good study techniques for critical thinking tests such as the MCAT probably picked them up in medical school, which helped immensely on their USMLE (this would be for the rare few though).

I do believe there is some correlation to intelligence and test taking, otherwise why would there be people who study just one month for the MCAT and get a score of 30 while there are those who study 3 months and can't get the same score.

 

[Cytarabine]

asdf

 

[kb1900]

I was one of those students who interviewed at a bunch of places for their BSBA/MD programs and the types of people that matriculate to those programs are extremely talented. I did not meet a single person who I would doubt could score 90th %ile + on the mcat. For the most part all successful applicants to those programs had near perfect SATs/ACTs, substantial research experience, volunteering, clinical experience etc. And the application process is fairly similar to the normal application process. I had a primary app (common app), secondaries, group interviews and MMIs and everything was rolling.

Most of the programs require that you maintain a 3.75+ to hold on to your garunteed matriculation to the associated medical school.

Personally, I think the MCAT is a great measure that standardized/contextualizes GPA variation across institutions. So for a BA/Md program to waive the MCAT means that they know for a fact that maintaining a >3.75 GPA at the specific institution is a good enough measure for matriculating to their medical school.

 

[Lucca]

asdf

Interesting charts, thanks! The correlation coefficients dont inspire much confidence outside of Step 1 and 2 though, and even then, preclinical grades are probably a stronger predictor than the MCAT score on those exams.

To answer the OPs question and address the "No PreMeds in Allo" rule: don't worry, almost everyone makes this mistake when making a thread; med students and physicians browse and contribute to pre-allo all of the time, but it is against the SDN house rules for pre-meds to post threads in Allo. Pretty sure you can comment on the existing threads there all you want though.

Second, the MCAT is an ordeal most of us have to go through. I, for one, am not adverse to standardized testing. I definitely believe an "equalizer" is needed to measure X person's science education against Y's science education and test preparation skills. Those two measurements are important because:
A) having a proven foundation of basic science knowledge when entering medical school is probably a nice thing to have and
B) high-stakes standardized testing is ubiquitous in this career and the MCAT is the first of many such exams for the doctor-to-be. BS/MD programs use the SAT as a substitute, in a way, since BS/MD programs tend to have SAT averages well above 2100. I'm not saying the SAT "predicts who will become a good doctor" but it is probably a good measure of a person's natural aptitude for standardized testing.

So standardized testing has its place in education, and I am glad there are people who spend a lot of time worrying about how we can get this right. That being said, I've said many times on these boards that it is my personal opinion that medical admissions seems to be far too fixated on numbers and I think, in many cases, the "numbers game" can be detrimental to selecting for good physicians and has negative consequences for the general education of many pre-meds which suffers for the sake of maintaining a high GPA/ preparing for a high MCAT score. It's not that I think stats and academic aptitude don't matter -- they do -- but I believe that past a certain point, they dont really measure anything of interest.

 

[7331poas]

I agree with you quite a bit! I like the idea of taking interesting well rounded people, but the idea that a liberal arts major accomplishes that end is ludicrous.

Controversial opinion time:
I'll also add copious volunteering to the med school "requirement list" as something that is meaningless. The number of hours or service projects completed tells us nothing about the service orientation of the person. Anyone, including the most selfish person, can volunteer in copious amounts to look good on paper. I know caring people who volunteered only 100-200 hours over 4 years who care much more than people with over 1000+ hours. Unfortunately it's a game and I think it's a shame that volunteer hours are a box to check for med school admissions.

Shadowing is relevant and important to understanding what doctors actually do, non-clinical volunteering is personal and shouldn't have a place in med school admissions.

Isnt this the same as the "smart" guy who doesnt work hard and has a low GPA because of it. Who gives a **** how caring or uncaring you actually are. its about what you do. The person who is super duper caring and has minimal hours is meaningless because they didnt put in the time to serve their community.

 

[tantacles]

I'm very thankful we have the MCAT. It is an (almost) object measure when GPAs and institutional difficulty vary so much. Without the MCAT, all the kids from top schools would be getting in over the kids from unknown schools. It's also a barrier to keep people out who cheated all throughout college and have amazing GPAs because of it.

I have to agree with the bolded. Granted, it also keeps out some people who would otherwise be excellent physicians, but having seen tons of cheating in college (some openly admitted and were proud of cheating in cell bio, a class where I had to work my butt off for a B- because it was so boring), I'm happy that there is some measure of med school fitness that can correct for these people.

 

[ERDOC555]

Isnt this the same as the "smart" guy who doesnt work hard and has a low GPA because of it. Who gives a **** how caring or uncaring you actually are. its about what you do. The person who is super duper caring and has minimal hours is meaningless because they didnt put in the time to serve their community.

The difference is that a monkey can volunteer but many monkey's can't get a 38+/3.9+

Also the caring individuals will give service their whole life as needed, the uncaring individuals will stop as soon as they get an acceptance.
We might as well say that applicants need to run 400 miles to be competitive. It has literally nothing to do with success in medical school and as a doctor.

I think the two most important factors for being a doctor are equally:
1. Intelligence and Stats (Learning ability)
2. Being a decent human being (Social and ethical ability)

No one wants the smartest doctor in the world who can't talk to a patient or do a consult
No one wants the nicest doctor in the world who is too dumb to diagnose an MI

Volunteering may have some predictability overall for gauging #2, but means nothing on the micro individual level. Yes people with lots of hours probably have stronger #2 skills, but when looking at any one applicant you don't know anything simply reading a number of hours on an application.

 

[chillaxbro]

Volunteering may have some predictability overall for gauging #2, but means nothing on the micro individual level. Yes people with lots of hours probably have stronger #2 skills, but when looking at any one applicant you don't know anything simply reading a number of hours on an application.

I agree. In fact, I argue that since "volunteering" is a requirement, you're not selecting for people who want to help others, but for the total opposite (gunners who do 2000 hours of volunteering with only the goal of getting into med school at all costs). It's a stupid and pointless game we all have to play

 

[7331poas]

The difference is that a monkey can volunteer but many monkey's can't get a 38+/3.9+

Also the caring individuals will give service their whole life as needed, the uncaring individuals will stop as soon as they get an acceptance.

The fact that your super caring person has minimal volunteerism says otherwise...

The thing about it is you have no say in the process at all. A collection of medical schools have decided that demonstrated service to the community is part of their mission for producing doctors in their communities. I hardly think these medical schools think everything that is done is out of true altruism. Most top MD applicants dont like doing research. Most dont like taking premed classes. Most dont like doing any of this.

I am interested in your conclusion that having high stats will make you a better doctor. Do you have any evidence to support this past a certain threshold. I wonder if there is clear differences in DO outcomes vs MD outcomes. I wonder if PAs went through residencies they would have lower outcomes as well.

 

[ERDOC555]

The fact that your super caring person has minimal volunteerism says otherwise...

The thing about it is you have no say in the process at all. A collection of medical schools have decided that demonstrated service to the community is part of their mission for producing doctors in their communities. I hardly think these medical schools think everything that is done is out of true altruism. Most top MD applicants dont like doing research. Most dont like taking premed classes. Most dont like doing any of this.

I am interested in your conclusion that having high stats will make you a better doctor. Do you have any evidence to support this past a certain threshold. I wonder if there is clear differences in DO outcomes vs MD outcomes. I wonder if PAs went through residencies they would have lower outcomes as well.

I'm more impressed with someone who gives an hour a week and that's literally all they can do because they have other necessary commitments and that's literally all they can afford, than someone who does 5 hours every week with all the time in the world because they want to get an MD and rack up an impressive hour count. It's like a homeless person giving a $10 bill and a millionaire giving $100. I'm much more impressed by the homeless man's selflessness in that case.

Medical schools like to say they focus on service for the same reasons they focus on primary care: public opinion and perception by outside bodies. I still maintain my point that service is a dumb "requirement"


Sorry, I don't think I was clear about high stats. I don't think high stats will make someone a better doctor, I think having a high level of intelligence will. More often than not more intelligent people will have better stats. However, this isn't always true.

What does GPA tell you?
-Simply put, this student puts in a massive amount of effort. Seeing a 3.9 or 4.0 in my opinion has little to do with intelligence. I see stupid people get As in classes all the time. They simply work incredibly hard to meet their goals. People who are willing to struggle and work hard will make good med students and physicians. You need work ethic.
GPA shows work ethic, and a little intelligence

What does MCAT tell you?
-This test focuses more on intelligence. No matter how hard someone works a 130 or 13 in a section is usually off limits for many people. People who get above 95th percentile have a natural ability for processing lots of information and critical thinking. THESE PEOPLE ARE INTELLECTUAL POWERHOUSES! Studying can raise your MCAT enough to get into an MD school, but for most people, even if they studied forever they couldn't get a 520.
MCAT shows intelligence, and a little work ethic

People with high stats in both GPA and MCAT are brilliant people with amazing work ethics. Those are the people who I want operating on me and diagnosing rare diseases. I also want someone who is a decent human being.

My magic formula is:
Hard Worker + Brilliant Mind + Good Person = Ideal Doctor

 

[7331poas]

I'm more impressed with someone who gives an hour a week and that's literally all they can do because they have other necessary commitments and that's literally all they can afford, than someone who does 5 hours every week with all the time in the world because they want to get an MD and rack up an impressive hour count. It's like a homeless person giving a $10 bill and a millionaire giving $100. I'm much more impressed by the homeless man's selflessness in that case.

Medical schools like to say they focus on service for the same reasons they focus on primary care: public opinion and perception by outside bodies. I still maintain my point that service is a dumb "requirement"


Sorry, I don't think I was clear about high stats. I don't think high stats will make someone a better doctor, I think having a high level of intelligence will. More often than not more intelligent people will have better stats. However, this isn't always true.

What does GPA tell you?
-Simply put, this student puts in a massive amount of effort. Seeing a 3.9 or 4.0 in my opinion has little to do with intelligence. I see stupid people get As in classes all the time. They simply work incredibly hard to meet their goals. People who are willing to struggle and work hard will make good med students and physicians. You need work ethic.
GPA shows work ethic, and a little intelligence

What does MCAT tell you?
-This test focuses more on intelligence. No matter how hard someone works a 130 or 13 in a section is usually off limits for many people. People who get above 95th percentile have a natural ability for processing lots of information and critical thinking. THESE PEOPLE ARE INTELLECTUAL POWERHOUSES! Studying can raise your MCAT enough to get into an MD school, but for most people, even if they studied forever they couldn't get a 520.
MCAT shows intelligence, and a little work ethic

People with high stats in both GPA and MCAT are brilliant people with amazing work ethics. Those are the people who I want operating on me and diagnosing rare diseases. I also want someone who is a decent human being.

My magic formula is:
Hard Worker + Brilliant Mind + Good Person = Ideal Doctor

So is this the idea? I wonder if anyone has run the study on undergrad GPA versus medical outcomes. I really dont think we are getting at the issue at hand here.

 

[Ho0v-man]

I'm a fan of the MCAT, but not its overemphasis that most schools seem to have. I wish it was more of a matter of achieving a minimum score and then moving forward. Hasn't it been shown somewhere that the loose correlation between MCAT scores and step 1 success stops mattering around 27-28?

I also wish there was a metric in place to gauge how one prepared for it.

For instance, it's apparently very common for people to study 8 hours/ day for 3-4 months for the MCAT. I worked ~70 hrs/week between my two jobs while studying for the MCAT. I'm a nontrad who has to put food on the table and couldn't study anywhere close to that level. As a result, I didn't live up to my full potential on it. How am I supposed to compete?

But I'm still glad that the MCAT exists. I went to natty lite U and I wouldn't have stood a chance against someone from an awesome school and that's the best part of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[7331poas]

I'm a fan of the MCAT, but not its overemphasis that most schools seem to have. I wish it was more of a matter of achieving a minimum score and then moving forward. Hasn't it been shown somewhere that the loose correlation between MCAT scores and step 1 success stops mattering around 27-28?

I also wish there was a metric in place to gauge how one prepared for it.

For instance, it's apparently very common for people to study 8 hours/ day for 3-4 months for the MCAT. I worked ~70 hrs/week between my two jobs while studying for the MCAT. I'm a nontrad who has to put food on the table. As a result, I didn't live up to my full potential on it. How am I supposed to compete?

Not sure about this argument either. Is it in the medical schools best interest to make concessions for the applicant? Suppose the issue at hand here was a poor GPA. Should that be excused because you have to put food on the table? Obviously this is a harsh question but I think it gets to the issue at hand.

The next idea is having a minimum score. I wonder what you think we will use to separate applicants now that MCAT or GPA are off the table. I remind you that most applicants are almost exactly the same (volunteering, tutoring, medical realated work, research with papers possibly, etc).

 

[Ho0v-man]

Not sure about this argument either. Is it in the medical schools best interest to make concessions for the applicant? Suppose the issue at hand here was a poor GPA. Should that be excused because you have to put food on the table? Obviously this is a harsh question but I think it gets to the issue at hand.

The next idea is having a minimum score. I wonder what you think we will use to separate applicants now that MCAT or GPA are off the table. I remind you that most applicants are almost exactly the same (volunteering, tutoring, medical realated work, research with papers possibly, etc).

I'm just saying there should (ideally) be a metric in place to more holistically evaluate an applicant. I think we can all agree that it's no sweat for a 21-22 y/o kid with nothing but time and a trust fund can get a 30-31 MCAT no sweat. It's huge for those who have outside responsibilities. I just wish there was way to take that into account. I don't know how one would go about doing that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kmp0410]

yes, it should.
while tests don't indicate actual success (although there are data indicating correlation between MCAT and USMLE scores), there needs to be a fair, universal standard in place to evaluate applicants.
i can't think of a better test than the standardized MCAT, since college grades aren't reliable (state/public vs. private/Ivy, for example, or hard science major vs. non-science major).

I'm sorry but I just HATE this logic. How about letting the people who runs these medical schools make this decision? Why does their need to be a "universal standard?" All of them will value things differently and they are all competing and innovating for the ways to find the best applicants. When we come up with a universal standard, the question of "is this the best way to do this?" never gets asked. I've never understood why someone would want to take the power away from qualified individuals who have stake in their decisions.

 

[kmp0410]

I'm just saying there should (ideally) be a metric in place to more holistically evaluate an applicant. I think we can all agree that it's no sweat for a 21-22 y/o kid with nothing but time and a trust fund can get a 30-31 MCAT no sweat. It's huge for those who have outside responsibilities. I just wish there was way to take that into account. I don't know how one would go about doing that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That metric is the judgment of admissions committee members. Almost everywhere they most certainly take that into account. The kid who worked throughout undergrad isn't dinged for not putting in 5 hours a week volunteering when the kid without a job is. Grades and MCAT can be a little bit trickier but at any school there is a range of scores that get accepted...the ones below the mean are usually just that, people with other things to offer.

 

[ERDOC555]

So is this the idea? I wonder if anyone has run the study on undergrad GPA versus medical outcomes. I really dont think we are getting at the issue at hand here.

Could you expound on your comment?

I think GPA and MCAT aren't perfect predictors simply because both can be nudged by 1000 other factors.

A 30 MCAT from someone who took a years worth of prep courses and private tutoring is far different from a 30 MCAT of someone who took it after a week of study. Both these people will have different paths in medicine despite the same score.

Think of a student who could get a 4.0 but choose to work instead and got a 3.5, especially out of need. Also think of a student that got a 4.0 because they simply did nothing else in life but study.

This is why we don't see a crazy strong correlation because there are so many other factors.

At the end all I'm trying to say is that the best doctors are the ones who are the most intelligent (thus able to give ideal medical care), the ones who are willing to work hard (willing go the extra mile so that patients have successful outcomes), and are generally good people (able to make patients feel comfortable and not do sketchy stuff).
And I do think GPA and MCAT can be associated with different levels of the first two traits.

 

[El-Rami]

The same argument can be applied to any of the myriad requirements for medical school acceptance. The MCAT is just one hurdle that people need to overcome in order to get accepted, and it's only fair that it's a universal requirement.

I really don't understand why people are afraid to take the MCAT. Yes, it is a long and grueling exam with a stressful post-exam waiting period, but it's really not that bad. All you do is create a study schedule, acquire the resources, and study. You'll have to do this for the USMLE exams in med school anyway.

 

[deleted158872]

I'm sorry but I just HATE this logic. How about letting the people who runs these medical schools make this decision? Why does their need to be a "universal standard?" All of them will value things differently and they are all competing and innovating for the ways to find the best applicants. When we come up with a universal standard, the question of "is this the best way to do this?" never gets asked. I've never understood why someone would want to take the power away from qualified individuals who have stake in their decisions.

the question of "is this the best way to do this?" only comes up when there is no standard.
the fact that all the power rests with the adcoms is what makes the process look like a crapshoot.

 

[kmp0410]

the question of "is this the best way to do this?" only comes up when there is no standard.
the fact that all the power rests with the adcoms is what makes the process look like a crapshoot.

Lolz what? The question of "is this the best way to do this?" SHOULD come up. That's the point.

Across different schools they will have different opinions on the best way to select applicants, which is ok. You can choose to value things differently based on what characteristics you think make the best applicants. Even that question isn't universal, as people have different ideas of what makes the best students and further...what makes the best doctors. If some school felt like they could pick the best applicants without the MCAT then that is their choice. If they are so far wrong, the results will show. Adcoms have power because that's their job, they are hired for that job, because they are the most qualified people to make these decisions. Let's not act like they are running a dictatorship though, the process of selecting medical students is a collaborative effort with numerous people involved. They are committees. Its a crap shoot simply because "qualified applicants > number of seats."