step 1 equivalents w/ mcat scores??

[Law2Doc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What I got the MCAT is none of your damn business.

Dude -- you are the one who insinuated you did well on the MCAT in your prior post, and that those who disagreed with you must only have that position because they have done worse. Nobody asked or cared how you did. I sure don't.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've got a helluva lot more facts

And helluva lot of zero is still zero.🙂

 

[Pinkertinkle]

And helluva lot of zero is still zero.🙂

If you take a case control study to be the same as a pile of anecdotes worth their weight in feces, then you're an idiot.

 

[Law2Doc]

If you take a case control study to be the same as a pile of anecdotes worth their weight in feces, then you're an idiot.

Cool it with the name calling. I'm just saying that what was true of '92 MCAT takers is likely not still true today. So to that extent the anecdotal evidence of folks taking things today is actually worth more (feces). Both forms of evidence aren't worth much. But at least anecdote is current.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Cool it with the name calling. I'm just saying that what was true of '92 MCAT takers is likely not still true today. So to that extent the anecdotal evidence of folks taking things today is actually worth more (feces).

Have you looked at an 92 MCAT test, or are you assuming? Material may shift but the test is fundamentally the same.
By your criteria no study in the whole world would satisfy you. The MCAT isn't a electron, there is no Heisenberg uncertainty principle saying it'll change the second you measure it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Have you looked at an 92 MCAT test, or are you assuming?

I have seen old MCAT test forms, and yes, they are different. There have certainly been changes in focuses on various subjects which vary drastically from year to year-- eg the percentage of organic chem to bio in the biological science section is a good example of something that has been far from stagnant. But more importantly is the fact that current med school matriculants have different average MCAT scores than those of a decade or more ago. While I don't see 1992 MCAT stats on the AAMC site. the 1994 average combined section MCAT score for matriculants was a 28.4, while in 2005 it was a 30.2. See http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/2005mcatgpa.htm. So folks are coming into med school with higher MCAT to start with. Will that impact Step 1 and the conclusion of your study? Who knows. One could very reasonably believe yes.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Yeah I guess they should just get rid of the MCAT alltogether, I mean it has no predictive value at all right? The only people that say it does is the AAMC and their ancient poorly conducted study. Undergrad GPA and extracurriculars are clearly all that's needed.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah I guess they should just get rid of the MCAT alltogether, I mean it has no predictive value at all right? The only people that say it does is the AAMC and their ancient poorly conducted study. Undergrad GPA and extracurriculars are clearly all that's needed.

No --nobody said this. There is a ton of gray area between the two illogical extremes you are providing. The schools need multiple hurdles to separate the wheat from the chaff, to try and pick out the best and the brightest, and those who will make it through the basic science years. The prereqs and MCAT are a crude attempt to do this, (with essays, ECs, LORs and interviews selecting for other desired attributes) and at a minimum these have some value in creating a hurdle above which you need to vault to get into med school. It is a form of quality control -- you impose a variety of obstacles and see who gets through. What I am saying is that after that, all bets are off. You have culled the herd to those who objectively you believe can compete at the medical school level. From there it is anyone's bet. Those that work hard in med school will probably do well on the Step exams. Beyond that, all else is speculative. (Note that the best ranked schools frequently take a pretty nice spread of scores from amongst solid credentialed people rather than the absolute highest scoring types -- they are doing this for a reason. If higher MCAT directly translated into something of value, such as better doctors, or even better Step scores, they wouldn't supplant their own wisdom for that of the numbers and would just blindly fill the class numerically from top on down. They don't do this, even though it would be easier and cost a lot less. Guess why? They think they can do a better job of selecting than a standardized test).

 

[Pinkertinkle]

No --nobody said this. There is a ton of gray area between the two illogical extremes you are providing. The schools need multiple hurdles to separate the wheat from the chaff, to try and pick out the best and the brightest, and those who will make it through the basic science years. The prereqs and MCAT are a crude attempt to do this, (with essays, ECs, LORs and interviews selecting for other desired attributes) and at a minimum these have some value in creating a hurdle above which you need to vault to get into med school. It is a form of quality control -- you impose a variety of obstacles and see who gets through. What I am saying is that after that, all bets are off. You have culled the herd to those who objectively you believe can compete at the medical school level. From there it is anyone's bet. Those that work hard in med school will probably do well on the Step exams. Beyond that, all else is speculative. (Note that the best ranked schools frequently take a pretty nice spread of scores from amongst solid credentialed people rather than the absolute highest scoring types -- they are doing this for a reason. If higher MCAT directly translated into something of value, such as better doctors, or even better Step scores, they wouldn't supplant their own wisdom for that of the numbers and would just blindly fill the class numerically from top on down. They don't do this, even though it would be easier and cost a lot less. Guess why? They think they can do a better job of selecting than a standardized test).

Is the guy with the 25 and 3.2 that got into medical school is equal in your eyes to the guy with 42 and a 4.0, if all bets are off after acceptace? Also then, why do the top medical schools have the highest MCAT averages?

 

[Law2Doc]

Is the guy with the 25 and 3.2 that got into medical school is equal in your eyes to the guy with 42 and a 4.0, if all bets are off after acceptace? Also then, why do the top medical schools have the highest MCAT averages?

You have to prove yourself at every level. You are trying to make your case with far too extreme outliers -- you will see very few, if any, folks with either a 3.2/25 or a 4.0/42 in a given allo med school. And you are now trying to introduce GPA into your argument despite having taking the position that MCAT is THE all important predictor of success. Once you open up the analysis to other factors, you undermine your position. (And actually move over to mine -- that the MCAT is but one hurdle, and not necessarilly more important than the other things adcoms select for).

I would argue that a typical ranked school tends to have a range of MCATs between 28 and 40. So yes, in this range I would say all bets are off. One has to assume the adcoms selected these individuals because they have proved themselves in OTHER ways that go beyond these numbers, not because the schools are complacent to take a hit on the USMLE results.

Along the same line of inquiry, why do top ten schools bother to take folks with MCAT scores in the 30ish range (and they do) when they have the opportunity to fill the class with scorers in the 36+ range? As high as the MCAT averages at those schools are, they could be even higher if this was the factor primarilly selected for. It isn't. They are picking people who did the best in a larger number of factors they deem important than just that score. So they will take someone with a 30-32 who has proven themselves in some other way over someone with a 38 who is less multi-dimensional. So much for the MCAT being the all important factor in their eyes. And they will be the first to tell you that everyone they accept is expected to excell, and perform at the same high level.

 

[QuinnB]

in reply to a way earlier post...my school's (top 10 program) correlation is r^2 = .55. I don't know if the correlation posted earlier (.7) was R or r^2. I didn't bother to look at the study that it was taken from.

All you have to do is study all the time and know everything from your first two years of med school and you'll be fine on the boards.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

You have to prove yourself at every level. You are trying to make your case with far too extreme outliers -- you will see very few, if any, folks with either a 3.2/25 or a 4.0/42 in a given allo med school. And you are now trying to introduce GPA into your argument despite having taking the position that MCAT is THE all important predictor of success. Once you open up the analysis to other factors, you undermine your position. (And actually move over to mine -- that the MCAT is but one hurdle, and not necessarilly more important than the other things adcoms select for).

I would argue that a typical ranked school tends to have a range of MCATs between 28 and 40. So yes, in this range I would say all bets are off. One has to assume the adcoms selected these individuals because they have proved themselves in OTHER ways that go beyond these numbers, not because the schools are complacent to take a hit on the USMLE results.

Along the same line of inquiry, why do top ten schools bother to take folks with MCAT scores in the 30ish range (and they do) when they have the opportunity to fill the class with scorers in the 36+ range? As high as the MCAT averages at those schools are, they could be even higher if this was the factor primarilly selected for. It isn't. They are picking people who did the best in a larger number of factors they deem important than just that score. So they will take someone with a 30-32 who has proven themselves in some other way over someone with a 38 who is less multi-dimensional. So much for the MCAT being the all important factor in their eyes. And they will be the first to tell you that everyone they accept is expected to excell, and perform at the same high level.

The only claim I've ever made is that people with high mcat scores have an easier time with the USMLE and I've provided proof. People can believe it or not.
I'm going back to studying some path as arguing on the internet doesn't improve my step 1 scores.

 

[QuikClot]

And helluva lot of zero is still zero.🙂

You don't like the study, Law, but you've already been forced to revise your criticisms of it several times because you didn't understand the study. So that criticism comes across as pretty shaky. Also, a study which for various reasons is not perfect is not "nothing." Literally any study anyone wants to compare to the real world can be criticized, fairly, as looking at a different time and a different set of circumstances, because studies always rely on analysis of past events, and circumstances are always different. Your attempt to go from "things have changed" to "the study means nothing" fail completely.

 

[latinfridley]

Here is an article that concludes gross anatomy is a better predictor of USMLE success:
Medical gross anatomy as a predictor of performance on the USMLE Step 1.
Anat Rec B New Anat. 2005 Mar;283(1):5-8.

..and here is a study on the predictive value of the OSCE and USMLE
The relationship between second-year medical students' OSCE scores and USMLE Step 1 scores.
Med Teach. 2002 Sep;24(5):535-9.

..and my personal favorite:
Evaluating the predictive validity of MCAT scores across diverse applicant groups.
Acad Med. 1998 Oct;73(10):1095-106
..Pay attention now:

The authors caution that although MCAT scores, alone and in combination with undergraduate GPA, are good predictors of medical school performance, they are not perfect. The authors encourage future research exploring additional predictor variables, such as diligence, motivation, communication skills, study habits, and other relevant characteristics. Similarly, they indicate that high grades and Step 1 scores are not the only indicators of success in the medical profession and call for studies examining other important qualities, such as integrity, interpersonal skills, capacity for caring, willingness to commit to lifelong learning, and desire to serve in underserved areas.

So, there are numerous predictors for success on the USMLE. Don't buy into the BS that 'i didn't do well on my MCAT, therefore I'm going to do badly on the USMLE'.
End of thread.
😎

 

[Law2Doc]

You don't like the study, Law, but you've already been forced to revise your criticisms of it several times because you didn't understand the study. So that criticism comes across as pretty shaky. Also, a study which for various reasons is not perfect is not "nothing." Literally any study anyone wants to compare to the real world can be criticized, fairly, as looking at a different time and a different set of circumstances, because studies always rely on analysis of past events, and circumstances are always different. Your attempt to go from "things have changed" to "the study means nothing" fail completely.

I didn't change my criticism of it multiple times, just once, and only then because I actually misunderstood the study the first time. Once I understood it correctly, I thought it even less valid than in the initial pass (I actually thought it was a better study than it is, initially -- my bad🙄 ). The proponent of the study in this thread has also varied his argument multiple times in the current page of this thread. Saying it was worth "zero" was probably a bit harsh on my part, but it is, in my opinion, closer to an accurate assessment of the study's probative worth than the "helluva lot" of evidence weight the proponent was trying to put on it. Sure studies "always rely on analysis of past events", but usually studies that rely on events FIFTEEN years ago aren't considered particularly determinative. Particularly so when things, such as the test itself, and the stats of matriculants, have notably changed in that interval.
I stand by my arguments.
Study hard in med school and forget the past. You got here and that other stuff is done. Step 1 is a totally independent event from anything prior to med school, and up to you to ace or tank.

 

[NEATOMD]

Blah blah blah insert pointless rant, blah

 

[Law2Doc]

Blah blah blah insert pointless rant, blah

Agreed. Sorry - I'll shut up now.

 

[velo]

It's not hard to ballpark, but you really won't be right for many. You really have very little science to go on here.

Maybe we're reading the OP differently, but if you look at what he wrote he was asking--for any given MCAT score, what is an equivilantly good Step 1 score? NOT if I got x on the MCAT can I expect y on Step 1?

 

[velo]

If he wanted to know what was ok, great, spectacular on Step 1, he would/should have asked that

That's what he did ask 🙄

 

[velo]

No one's arguing that there's some fatalistic rule like "you did well/poorly on the MCAT therefore you WILL do well/poorly on Step 1." But at the same time its pretty silly to pretend there's not going to be a correlation between one standardized test that all med students take and another standardized test that all med students take. Yes they're different, but they're not all that disimilar--people who do well on the MCAT tend to do well on Step 1 and the numbers bare that out. If you want to get your panties in a twist arguing about it and how that study suboptimal that's fine, but I haven't seen anyone cite any competing hard evidence that there's no correlation.

 

[EC3]

Yeah I guess they should just get rid of the MCAT alltogether, I mean it has no predictive value at all right? The only people that say it does is the AAMC and their ancient poorly conducted study. Undergrad GPA and extracurriculars are clearly all that's needed.

the relationship b/w MCAT and USMLE is much more likely to be counfounding association than actual statistical correlation. people who do well on the MCAT tend to be more serious students. With this said, the only way to truly test for correlation is to take people who did well on the MCAT and stratify them into two groups: those who studied a lot during 1st two years and those who didn't. Then do the same with those who didn't do well on teh MCAT.

I'd be willing to bet that people who studied would greatly exceed those who didn't, regardless of what the MCAT score. Maybe the people who scored well on the MCAT and studied alot might do better than those who didn't do well on the MCAT but also studied... but if they both score > 1 standard deviation then the MCAT is a crappy admissions standard.

You can cite whatever old studies you'd like but individual schools have done research and found little correlation b/w MCAT and USMLE. The two tests are completely different and you can't "smart" your way through a test based on memorization. People who do better on the MCAT are generally harder working people; that's about the extent of significance.

 

[EC3]

Is the guy with the 25 and 3.2 that got into medical school is equal in your eyes to the guy with 42 and a 4.0, if all bets are off after acceptace? Also then, why do the top medical schools have the highest MCAT averages?

You can keep up the pissing contest but the bottom line is that the step1 is a knowledge-based test. If you don't study the first two years, regardless of if you are rain man, you aren't going to even pass the exam. You can make up whatever scenario you'd like but in the end there is no substitute for studying.

 

[EC3]

The only claim I've ever made is that people with high mcat scores have an easier time with the USMLE and I've provided proof. People can believe it or not.
I'm going back to studying some path as arguing on the internet doesn't improve my step 1 scores.

Your claim is wrong. Hard working people have an "easier time" with the USMLE. Scoring well on the MCAT is just a representation of a hard working person.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

You can keep up the pissing contest but the bottom line is that the step1 is a knowledge-based test. If you don't study the first two years, regardless of if you are rain man, you aren't going to even pass the exam. You can make up whatever scenario you'd like but in the end there is no substitute for studying.

You think people with high MCAT's are *****s that don't study? People with high MCATs probably study more than average. They got a high MCAT by working hard and that's why they'll do well on Step1 too. No one's claimed that just because someone did well on MCAT they'll automatically do well on step 1 without studying. The claim is that people who do well on the MCAT tend do also do well on the USMLE Step 1. THIS IS TRUE.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Your claim is wrong. Hard working people have an "easier time" with the USMLE. Scoring well on the MCAT is just a representation of a hard working person.

So
high MCAT = Hard working
Hard working = High Step 1

I don't see how this doesn't support my claim.

 

[lord_jeebus]

the relationship b/w MCAT and USMLE is much more likely to be counfounding association than actual statistical correlation.

Where did you learn stats?

Correlation has nothing to do with why two measures correlate. Just because two outcomes may have a common cause does not mean that their correlation is any less real.

 

[velo]

the relationship b/w MCAT and USMLE is much more likely to be counfounding association than actual statistical correlation. people who do well on the MCAT tend to be more serious students. With this said, the only way to truly test for correlation is to take people who did well on the MCAT and stratify them into two groups: those who studied a lot during 1st two years and those who didn't. Then do the same with those who didn't do well on teh MCAT.

holy splitting hairs batman. I don't know if technically you'd even call this a "confounder" but yes I think the unspoken assumption is that people who do well on the MCAT tend to do well on the USMLE for the same reason they did well on the MCAT-- smarts and hard work....sheesh...

I don't know why this thread has generated so much defensiveness, but I'll throw this out there: If you didn't do as well as you would have liked on the MCAT its still totally possible to rock step 1 with hard work during yrs 1/2 and good test prep. I'm just saying that study habits don't change overnight, people tend to fall back into old patterns, and therefore the ability to do well on one standardized exam (MCAT) seems to correlate with the ability to do well on another (Step 1).

 

[Hoya11]

I'm just saying that study habits don't change overnight, people tend to fall back into old patterns, and therefore the ability to do well on one standardized exam (MCAT) seems to correlate with the ability to do well on another (Step 1).

By the time you take the boards, you have most likely learned to study hard for a test. The only question is, did you learn this study method before med school or during? I think the people who do very well on the MCAT learned the med school study method before, and the people who make a relative improvement from MCAT to Step 1 learn during. This levels the playing field for step 1, since now everyone knows how to work hard and basically has the same background.

 

[EC3]

So
high MCAT = Hard working
Hard working = High Step 1

I don't see how this doesn't support my claim.

it does support your claim, partially. but people with low MCATs can change their study habits once in medical school; thus, they can have great USMLE scores.

my point is that MCAT score doesn't really tell you much unless you looked at "why" they scored what they did.

 

[EC3]

Where did you learn stats?

Correlation has nothing to do with why two measures correlate. Just because two outcomes may have a common cause does not mean that their correlation is any less real.

It was a simplification meant to imply that correlation doesn't equal causation.

"zOMG, where did you learn teh statistix0rs!?1one"

 

[velo]

This levels the playing field for step 1, since now everyone knows how to work hard and basically has the same background.

No I don't think that's true. Some people are clearly better at preparing for these things than others.

 

[velo]

It was a simplification meant to imply that correlation doesn't equal causation.

"zOMG, where did you learn teh statistix0rs!?1one"

Well then all this proves is that you somehow don't understand the meaning of "causation" No one is arguing that a high MCAT score causes you to get a high step score. If that were true we just wouldn't have step1, everyone would submit their MCAT scores and be assigned their step 1 scores. I don't think anyone has implied anything other than the fact that there's a correlation (as you said) between MCAT scores (particularly verbal scores) and step 1 scores--people who do well on one tend to do well on the other.

That fact that its a correlation is tantamount to saying there are "confounders" so I don't understand your point there. Who here is arguing that there is some intrinsic property of the MCAT score that improves your step 1 score??

 

[QuikClot]

hey everyone. i'm starting my 3rd semester in the caribbeans and i'm going to start reviewing for step 1. i have no idea about how the scores go. can anyone break it down for me and give me their equivalents w/ mcat scores? i know that passing is 183 and i guess people are shooting for 200... so does that mean 200 would be equivalent to a 30 in the mcats?

200 = 30
220 = 34?
240 = 38?
250 = 40?

There is no reason to feel bad about thread drift -- it is a fact of life -- but it is worth pointing out that the OP was clearing trying to understand what Step 1 scores meant, and was using MCAT scores as a point of reference. He didn't ask anything about a relationship between MCAT score earned/Step 1 score, as is clearly evidenced, for example, by the fact that the earlier score is listed second. He might have used pecentiles instead of MCAT scores, but he picked something he and we had experience with.

That said, MCATs are a good predictor of Step 1 scores, according to the data. This makes sense. Step 1 scores are going to be a function of test-taking skills, good study habits, intelligence and memory, and all of those things also help one get a good MCAT, though their relative importance is different.

 

[Dunce]

med students are some weird ass people

 

[velo]

it is worth pointing out that the OP was clearing trying to understand what Step 1 scores meant, and was using MCAT scores as a point of reference.

exactly

 

[Miami_med]

The average MCAT is around 30 for matriculants. The average step 1 is around 215, and obviously, all people taking step 1 are matriculants. I guess you could look at it this way:

181 is passing, approximately 24, the minimum score for a shot at a decent
school in the US

215 is approximately 30

230 is the score where you become competative for most specialties at most
places, so approximately 34.

260 is that magic score that would satisfy everyone, approximately 40.

This is of course completely useless, but it does answer the actual question asked. Because there are more residency spots than graduates, everyone gets a spot. It is not like a low step 1 will make you not a doctor, unlike the MCAT, unless you fail. Almost everyone will pass. The bottleneck in medicine is admission to medical school. After that, you have to quit or fail to not become a doctor with a specialty. Of course if you are aiming for Derm, that changes things.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

That said, MCATs are a good predictor of Step 1 scores, according to the data. This makes sense. Step 1 scores are going to be a function of test-taking skills, good study habits, intelligence and memory, and all of those things also help one get a good MCAT, though their relative importance is different.

OMG YOU CANNOT DO THAT. THAT WOULD IMPLY MY LOW MCAT SCORE MEANS A LOW USMLE,,,, OH NOOOES!!!1111!12

 

[velo]

181 is passing, approximately 24, the minimum score for a shot at a decent
school in the US

215 is approximately 30

230 is the score where you become competative for most specialties at most
places, so approximately 34.

260 is that magic score that would satisfy everyone, approximately 40.

sounds reasonable to me. was that so hard?

 

[Doctor Bagel]

med students are some weird ass people

👍

 

[callendm]

Ability to perform well on standardized exams is true across SATS, MCATS, BOARDS. So many confounding variables among which it is difficult to quote correlations from a 15 year old study. When push comes to shove, working hard in med school can certainly get you the grades. That is if your particular school gives out grades during the academic years. If not, slack all you want and rely on your awesome skills when it comes to the standardized tests. Also, you need to have that extra edge with test taking skills to score in the upper national percentiles. Those of you who weren’t born with this don’t feel too bad. Your hard work will flow into your M3/M4 years; most likely get you glowing recommendations from your clerkship attendings. Basically, be comfortable in your own skin. Figure out where you lie in the continuum of medical school students and enjoy the ride.

College: MCAT 26, GPA 3.972
Med School: STEP ONE 228, M1/M2 Grades: 12 Honors, 2 High Pass, 1 Pass

p.s. as if you couldn't guess I am one of those hard working partially retarted students that will hopefully pay off in the long run 😉

 

[daeojkim]

From just my own speculation and experience, those people who have great GPA but low MCAT score tend to have great memory skills, but lack full understanding of the material.

I know plenty of people who had 3.9+ GPA as science major but could not crack 30 in MCAT.

In college and med school classes if you have great memorizing skills but not a great understanding of the subject you can still do very well. Especially in med school when they throw so much material, if you have great memory you will do well.

May be I am wrong, but that's how I have seen the trend.


As for OP's Q. I would rather see what is the distribution of USMLE scores. I think that would be more useful and not what MCAT vs. USMLE correleration.