Should the AAMC Establish an MCAT cut off

[RedState]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Should The MCAT be a test that one can fail? That is, should the AAMC establish that an applicant must meet a certain threshold in order to even be a contender for medical school? If so what should the minimum score be?

 

[chiz2kul]

10

 

[DrWookie]

With very few exceptions there more or less are "cutoffs" for MCAT scores to different schools.

I don't think it is necessary for AAMC to set a cutoff, though I don't think people would mind if schools were more honest about what is required to be accepted, except in extreme cases. For instance, I feel more schools could just simply screen through MCAT scores (and maybe GPA) BEFORE the secondary to weed people out who just don't cut. They probably won't do that because they want our money, but still...it would be nice.

 

[chemnerd89]

Most schools I applied to said you need an MCAT >24

 

[airplanes]

Why bother? There are effectively cutoffs at each school anyways. If you're trying to apply with a super low MCAT without doing your homework...then I guess it's your loss.

 

[Bacchus]

They need to make money, too.

 

[RedState]

The minimum cut-off would save non-competitive applicants money, increase the quality of matriculating students and force the weed-outs to get better prepared. This way, we'd have fewer folks with great stats having trouble getting into medical school? They'd be skimming off the bottom to make more rrom for folks at the top. Everyone wins.

 

[airplanes]

The minimum cut-off would save non-competitive applicants money, increase the quality of matriculating students and force the weed-outs to get better prepared. This way, we'd have fewer folks with great stats having trouble getting into medical school? They'd be skimming off the bottom to make more rrom for folks at the top. Everyone wins.

The ones on the bottom get dropped kicked anyways. Why would folks with "great stats" have less trouble getting in? There will always be exceptions but the numbers don't like. People with good GPA and a high MCAT get in at an extremely high clip (as they understandably should). The ones who have trouble are deficient in some category or other and still will be with an MCAT cutoff (ECs, interviewing, LOR's, essays, etc.)

 

[GoSpursGo]

The minimum cut-off would save non-competitive applicants money

Cynically, why would schools want this?

increase the quality of matriculating students and force the weed-outs to get better prepared. This way, we'd have fewer folks with great stats having trouble getting into medical school? They'd be skimming off the bottom to make more rrom for folks at the top. Everyone wins.

1) How high would you be making this cutoff? Already there seems to be an unofficial cutoff of 25 or so at just about any allopathic school, and I'd say that above that number it's possible that other factors like GPA, research, clinical experience and other ECs could potentially make an applicant good enough to be accepted. 2) Great stats isn't everything. If people have worked hard in their undergrad career studying AND getting the necessary clinical experiences, they won't have any problem getting into med school with the system as it's now established. If, on the other hand, they've done nothing but study in college, they deserve to have their application scrutinized and possibly be denied entry for being underprepared for the medical profession.

 

[yangxx2]

Most schools I applied to said you need an MCAT >24

Off topic but...I love your signature

I don't think it should be necessary for there to be a cut-off for MCAT or make it something you can fail..it's just superfluous.

 

[RedState]

Cynically, why would schools want this?

Well, to be equally cynical, imagine how much money schools could collect getting desperate students to sign up for additional undergraduate courses or post-bacc/SMP programs. Imagine the duplicate application fees and MCAT fees that the AAMC could collect. Even a slight increase in applicant pool quality could affect the amount of research money that flows in and merit scholarship eligibility. Thus, students could be slightly more apt to have less debt after medical school. Kind of a domino effect.

Application fees lost are trivial when compared to the potential for additional tuition collected -and the application fees would just be delayed, not entirely averted.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Well, to be equally cynical, imagine how much money schools could collect getting desperate students to sign up for additional undergraduate courses or post-bacc/SMP programs. Imagine the duplicate application fees and MCAT fees that the AAMC could collect. Even a slight increase in applicant pool quality could affect the amount of research money that flows in and merit scholarship eligibility. Thus, students could be slightly more apt to have less debt after medical school. Kind of a domino effect.

Application fees lost are trivial when compared to the potential for additional tuition collected -and the application fees would just be delayed, not entirely averted.

A low MCAT does not mean they'll be taking a post-bacc or an extra year; if GPA isn't their problem, why would they waste time trying to improve it? They would just re-take the MCAT, and money that flows into the AAMC does not go to schools.

 

[RedState]

if GPA isn't their problem, why would they waste time trying to improve it? They would just re-take the MCAT, and money that flows into the AAMC does not go to schools.

Answer: Because A) they are neurotic pre-meds disposed to all manner of irrationality 🙂 But also because B) not taking classes means entering loan repayment. I imagine that many students will take classes just to push back having to pay on their loans (while incurring additional loans of course -see part A of this answer) -they'll also feel compelled to improve other parts of thier 2x MCAT taker application. I'd also venture to guess that many really low scoring folks don't have stellar GPAs either.

Of course if they leave themselves time to retake the MCAT in the same cycle, then no there wouldn't be additional money to schools, but to the AAMC, yes (a good PR move for the AAMC, too).

 

[BlueElmo]

I don't think they should have a cutoff. I mean, what would be the use for such a cutoff?

 

[student1799]

As others have said, there's no need for AAMC to have a cutoff when the schools have their own. Let them decide.

If you want a cutoff, I'll give you one: score below 8 in any section and you'll have quite a hard time getting interviews. Below a 7, hasta la vista, baby.

 

[deleted202457]

A national cutoff would be ridiculous because the standards are different from school to school, whether you are MD or DO, and what country you are applying to.

 

[futureboy]

I vote no. Med schools should be able to interpret the scores as they wish.

 

[DrSno]

Most schools I applied to said you need an MCAT >24

Yeah but I'd be for a minimum cutoff though. A regular poster on these forums got into an allopathic school with a 23 (with a 6 in verbal!). He also goes out of his way to advertise his piety incessantly.
I think 25 would be a decent cutoff though it should be very rare that someone gets in with under a 28 or 29.

 

[NotAndrew]

Yeah but I'd be for a minimum cutoff though. A regular poster on these forums got into an allopathic school with a 23 (with a 6 in verbal!). He also goes out of his way to advertise his piety incessantly.
I think 25 would be a decent cutoff though it should be very rare that someone gets in with under a 28 or 29.

Why?

An MCAT cutoff is just silly.

 

[megamega]

I think an MCAT cutoff is a stupid idea. I don't see how that would help anyone. Applicants are smart enough to figure out their own chances of getting into medical school, and schools have criteria to figure out who they'll let in. Anyway, getting into med school takes more than just a good MCAT, and even a bad MCAT can be made up for by a good GPA and ECs. So, just let the schools decide what they determine their cut off to be.

 

[junkct]

If people with NO chance submit primaries, amcas still gets their money. I don't think amcas would allow AAMC to filter out their customers. Schools (such as mayo) also get easy money by giving secondaries to applicants who have no chance...

 

[Dr Lyss]

If people with NO chance submit primaries, amcas still gets their money. I don't think amcas would allow AAMC to filter out their customers. Schools (such as mayo) also get easy money by giving secondaries to applicants who have no chance...

majority of schools do this, not just Mayo.


I think a cut off would be silly, especially since your score can be very different if you rock certain sections and bomb another. Also, if there was a "failing" score some schools wouldn't be able to take a chance on students with lower scores. Individual schools should decide what is too low for them. It's not like the Board exams where you need to reach a certain score or you put patients at risk. If my verbal score blows no one's life is in jeopardy.

 

[RedState]

In theory, a person could merely bubble in the first bubble of the CBT and be admitted with whatever the lowest curved score is. That makes the process corrupt(able). When you require a test and then set no minimum standard, the test really doesn't mean anything -not only because it would be possible for an unqualified person to get in via questionable means, but also in terms of setting a standard to protect the public. If one can blow the MCAT and then matriculate, which happens from time to time, why even require the test. If the test can't be failed, then it implicitly has no relationship to one's ability to be a good physician -so again, why require it?

 

[mmmcdowe]

I think we should take it a step further and make the MCAT P/F.

Think about it.

 

[mmmcdowe]

In theory, a person could merely bubble in the first bubble of the CBT and be admitted with whatever the lowest curved score is. That makes the process corrupt(able). When you require a test and then set no minimum standard, the test really doesn't mean anything -not only because it would be possible for an unqualified person to get in via questionable means, but also in terms of setting a standard to protect the public. If one can blow the MCAT and then matriculate, which happens from time to time, why even require the test. If the test can't be failed, then it implicitly has no relationship to one's ability to be a good physician -so again, why require it?

The assumption is that there is a specific MCAT score where students are no longer intelligent/good enough to be doctors. That in itself assumes that intelligence is the only thing that determines MCAT score. The MCAT is not designed to determine who is good enough to be a doctor. What it was designed to be is a unbiased, standardized scale by which other academic achievements can be measured, as well as a certain level of intellect and dedication. The MCAT can tell us about inflated GPAs, deflated GPAs, and all sorts of things, but it can't tell us who a good doctor is. If the average applicant (there are databases) at school A has a 3.8 and a 32, but the average applicant at school B has a 3.6 and a 32, it can be reasonably assumed that school B is harder to do well in and a 3.8 32 applicant from there has done academically better than school A's average applicant.

 

[Dr Lyss]

In theory, a person could merely bubble in the first bubble of the CBT and be admitted with whatever the lowest curved score is. That makes the process corrupt(able). When you require a test and then set no minimum standard, the test really doesn't mean anything -not only because it would be possible for an unqualified person to get in via questionable means, but also in terms of setting a standard to protect the public. If one can blow the MCAT and then matriculate, which happens from time to time, why even require the test. If the test can't be failed, then it implicitly has no relationship to one's ability to be a good physician -so again, why require it?

it has no bearing on whether you will be a good physician. It indicates how successful you might be in medical school, just like the SAT is a way of seeing how a student might handle college.

 

[RoadRunner17]

I think we should take it a step further and make the MCAT P/F.

Think about it.

That's a good one...

 

[mmmcdowe]

it has no bearing on whether you will be a good physician. It indicates how successful you might be in medical school, just like the SAT is a way of seeing how a student might handle college.

It is sadly an imperfect system. I actually scored a higher percentile on the MCAT than the SAT.

 

[RoadRunner17]

it has no bearing on whether you will be a good physician. It indicates how successful you might be in medical school, just like the SAT is a way of seeing how a student might handle college.

It is sadly an imperfect system. I actually scored a higher percentile on the MCAT than the SAT.

Eh, if y'all have better ideas, feel free to let the rest of us know. I am not sure how else they might be able to revamp the MCAT to make it a more optimal test. Maybe get rid of VR and the WS and replace it with something more relevant to medicine? Yeah, can't really see how.. but it's late so I probably need sleep..

 

[soundbyte]

That would be like saying the college board can dictate college entrance requirements....

 

[RedState]

I think we should take it a step further and make the MCAT P/F.

Think about it.

You can't in one breath say make the MCAT P/F and in another acknowledge that it is a scale of ability. P/F would give no data about exceptional abilities, making the only factors getting people into certain programs unverified ECs and good marketing skills. I don't think the MCAT is necessarily any measure of the quality of physician you will become, unless you think that it does a good job of testing how you assimilate data and piece together information (the view of many). But if the measurement is what gives you data, then surely P/F would make the test even more useless. Can't they design a test which states you must meet a certain level of ability or you don't make the cut?

 

[RedState]

That would be like saying the college board can dictate college entrance requirements....

Or it would be like saying you need to pass a security clearance before entering the CIA training program. It's not just college, it's medical school, and having a baseline for intellect might be in the public interest.

 

[bozz]

You should join the AAMC and reform it completely to save premeds money and to weed out the ones who can't make good decisions. Make that your new goal. But you won't... and nobody will for the same reasons that you won't :/

 

[RedState]

you should join the AAMC and reform it completely to save premeds money. Make that your new goal!

Totally, dude . But I'm not on a crusade to save students money. The question is about setting a minimum necessary standard for medical school matriculation. That way everyone gets in because they have a good heart, and at least a minimum standard aptitude.

 

[mmmcdowe]

You can't in one breath say make the MCAT P/F and in another acknowledge that it is a scale of ability. P/F would give no data about exceptional abilities, making the only factors getting people into certain programs unverified ECs and good marketing skills. I don't think the MCAT is necessarily any measure of the quality of physician you will become, unless you think that it does a good job of testing how you assimilate data and piece together information (the view of many). But if the measurement is what gives you data, then surely P/F would make the test even more useless. Can't they design a test which states you must meet a certain level of ability or you don't make the cut?

It was meant to be sarcastic. I like the MCAT just the way it is.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Eh, if y'all have better ideas, feel free to let the rest of us know. I am not sure how else they might be able to revamp the MCAT to make it a more optimal test. Maybe get rid of VR and the WS and replace it with something more relevant to medicine? Yeah, can't really see how.. but it's late so I probably need sleep..

Frankly I think verbal reasoning is probably more relevant than physical sciences. The ability to be analytical, make deductions, and apply knowledge is all tested in verbal reasoning. Biological sciences at least is full of charts and tables and also tests application skills in a biological and scientific setting. Physical sciences does this as well, but all of the equations and math that you have to do is really not that relevant to medicine.

 

[RedState]

- and to weed out the ones who can't make good decisions. -But you won't... and nobody will for the same reasons that you won't :/

What a quick wit you are. But for all those here who say no, there are a hundred threads posted by aggrieved students saying that they have high stats and were wronged by the unfair selection process. How about a 27 w/ an 8 per category minimum? Might strain some lumps from the gravy, no?

 

[dr1989]

i think no-because most of the schools vary on what their cutoff is anyways so why set a general one for all? i mean no disrespect to any of the schools, but there is a reason why, say, ucla or usc is a top school compared to some small school like westwood.

 

[RedState]

i think no-because most of the schools vary on what their cutoff is anyways so why set a general one for all? i mean no disrespect to any of the schools, but there is a reason why, say, ucla or usc is a top school compared to some small school like westwood.

Why not just toss the MCAT then? Let admission rest on other aspects of the portfolio.

 

[NotAndrew]

Totally, dude . But I'm not on a crusade to save students money. The question is about setting a minimum necessary standard for medical school matriculation. That way everyone gets in because they have a good heart, and at least a minimum standard aptitude.

This is dumb.

The USMLE exist for this reason, only they actually test your ability to be a doctor, not a prediction of what one might do if admitted to med school.

 

[Dissected]

Or it would be like saying you need to pass a security clearance before entering the CIA training program. It's not just college, it's medical school, and having a baseline for intellect might be in the public interest.

With how competitive medical school admissions are at this point, there is no worry about admitting a student with sub-par intellect. even someone who scores from 25-29 could be an intelligent individual who had a bad test. They are still above average after all. As things stand, students with scores in this range will have a heck of a time getting in to any MD school anyway. Why would you need a minimum cutoff if the way the system works already pretty much creates one? If a school admits a few sub-30 scores every year, they probably have good rationale. adcoms are pretty good at choosing students that won't fail out.

 

[RedState]

With how competitive medical school admissions are at this point, there is no worry about admitting a student with sub-par intellect. even someone who scores from 25-29 could be an intelligent individual who had a bad test. They are still above average after all. As things stand, students with scores in this range will have a heck of a time getting in to any MD school anyway. Why would you need a minimum cutoff if the way the system works already pretty much creates one? If a school admits a few sub-30 scores every year, they probably have good rationale. adcoms are pretty good at choosing students that won't fail out.

I see your point, but if you have a bad test day, then why not retake the test so that there can be assurance that everyday will not be a bad test day (if you know what I mean). I'm just throwing out hypotheticals here. What else is there to do at 11p.m.

 

[student1799]

How about a 27 w/ an 8 per category minimum? Might strain some lumps from the gravy, no?

The "gravy," as you put it, is being strained already. If you look at the charts on pp. 25-27 of the MSAR, you'll see that about 80% of applicants scoring a 7 on any of the 3 multiple-choice sections of the MCAT are not admitted to any medical school.

BTW, Mr. RedState, has it occurred to you that the MCAT might not actually measure a person's academic ability or potential to succeed in med school? I offer my own experience as an example. I got excellent grades in chemistry and physics at an Ivy League school, yet did poorly (7's) on the PS section of the MCAT twice in a row, due to nerves. (I blew the pacing and didn't finish all the questions.) Five months later, I took the MCAT a third time and got a 12 in that same section; in other words, my score went from 38th percentile to 95th percentile. (BTW, I studied for a month before the retake, and none of it was content, just test-taking strategy and pacing.)

So did I transform from a ****** to a genius in five months? Or could it possibly be that the MCAT doesn't really measure anything, except how good you are at taking the MCAT?

 

[RedState]

The "gravy," as you put it, is being strained already. If you look at the charts on pp. 25-27 of the MSAR, you'll see that about 80% of applicants scoring a 7 on any of the 3 multiple-choice sections of the MCAT are not admitted to any medical school.

BTW, Mr. RedState, has it occurred to you that the MCAT might not actually measure a person's academic ability or potential to succeed in med school? I offer my own experience as an example. I got excellent grades in chemistry and physics at an Ivy League school, yet did poorly (7's) on the PS section of the MCAT twice in a row, due to nerves. (I blew the pacing and didn't finish all the questions.) Five months later, I took the MCAT a third time and got a 12 in that same section; in other words, my score went from 38th percentile to 95th percentile. (BTW, I studied for a month before the retake, and none of it was content, just test-taking strategy and pacing.)

So did I transform from a ****** to a genius in five months? Or could it possibly be that the MCAT doesn't really measure anything, except how good you are at taking the MCAT?

Exactly, you just supported my argument. Retake the test, get a better score -you have more school options, schools that accept you have better stats, broader applicant pool reaches for a higher standard and a minimum requiremnet is met. I think the MCAT is mostly about strategy, so yeah, proving that you can get yourself through it while acheiving a minimum standard might be a valid requirement.

 

[itsallthesame]

i vote < 28 or < 7 on one section = Fail with no score reported, only that you took the test. the mcat is the only truly standardized measure we have of entering students and all should be high quality. in our current system, you must be able to pass step I to be a good dr., so let's hold our applicants to a similar standard. this would prevent schools from accepting people who simply don't deserve to get in (ex: bac/MD's who don't put any effort into college, children of important people).

Would you want to wind up in an ER being treated by someone who got a 26 on their MCAT?

 

[mmmcdowe]

i vote < 28 or < 7 on one section = Fail with no score reported, only that you took the test. the mcat is the only truly standardized measure we have of entering students and all should be high quality. in our current system, you must be able to pass step I to be a good dr., so let's hold our applicants to a similar standard. this would prevent schools from accepting people who simply don't deserve to get in (ex: URMs).

Would you want to wind up in an ER being treated by someone who got a 26 on their MCAT?

What you were really thinking.

Oh, btw. Average DO is like 26. So basically half of all DOs are not qualified to be doctors? Funny how well they are doing!

Also, Step 1 has the least to do with being a doctor of the Steps, from what I have heard. Boards would be a better example.

 

[redlight]

nope - no AAMC cut-off needed. schools have their own cut-offs...
btw, anyone know why the cut-offs are so low?

 

[flip26]

Somebody linked on another thread to a recent article on the worthlessness of some of the pre reqs (organic and physics) for med school prep. The present premed pre reqs have been pretty much unchanged for over 80 years, and many within med school admissions are pushing for significant changes to the pre reqs (more bio / genetics / biochem).

The MCAT is designed to test the pre reqs as they exist, but it appears that it is already having emphasis shifted away from organic to more biology / genetics material. Nonetheless the MCAT is an imperfect test of less than ideal pre reqs. Having absolute cut offs of pass / fail will not make this test any more useful.

Schools are free to consider the MCAT scores in any way they want. Some place extreme emphasis on it, while some do not. This "free market" system is favorable to applicants who can apply to as many schools as they want in search of schools that may overlook the weakness in their MCAT scores, and that is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

 

[Chuck's Right Foot]

Totally, dude . But I'm not on a crusade to save students money. The question is about setting a minimum necessary standard for medical school matriculation. That way everyone gets in because they have a good heart, and at least a minimum standard aptitude.

:troll:


and if not troll, sponsored by Summer's Eve.

 

[MediumDef]

Would you want to wind up in an ER being treated by someone who got a 26 on their MCAT?

This may be one of the most inane questions I've ever heard. It essentially reads: "Getting a <27 on the MCAT means you will be an incompetent physician". Since when was someones ability defined by a test they took 10 years ago. You should push for physicians public profiles to include all standardized test scores from the PSAT on up.