Step 1 transition to P/F and future MCAT admissions

[Glutenlover1948]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Given the (weak) correlation between MCAT score and Step 1 score, I understand that a minor factor in admissions was the was the technical interest in accepting classes with higher median MCATs. That way the program could have a more successful class on the STEP 1 exam (and have better residency match rate).

Now that STEP 1 is transitioning to P/F, can we expect any statistical variation in the accepted MCAT pool, such as increased standard deviation or varied mean/median? Does it make adcoms more/less likely to take a risk on a lower stat applicant?

 

[Principia]

Though I don't know the data off hand, I would imagine that the correlation between the MCAT and Step 2 is similar to the correlation between the MCAT and Step 1. Since Step 2 will likely be the important standardized exams for residency applications, I would be surprised if anything changes specifically because of the re-emphasis from Step 1 to Step 2. But, we can hope that there is continued emphasis towards a more robust review of applications for other reasons.

 

[Fencer]

Tongue in cheek {insert sarcasm emoji} - (but this is real) .... For SOM, there is a strong correlation between MCAT score and USN&WR standing. SOM Deans get incentives to improve their USN&WR standing. What do you think would happen? 😛

 

[Seihai]

There are only two true numerical metrics for programs to evaluate applicants - the MCAT and your GPA. Research hours are fluid and variable (productivity is more important and hours only really play a factor in the absence of productivity).

No; I don't think there will be any variation in the MCAT pool being accepted. Step 2 is still a thing, and you still have to go through med school as an MD or MD-PhD applicant, and the MCAT (while it may not do the best job) does still test the essential concepts you should know before starting med school.

 

[Fencer]

Earlier this week, we had our first PSTP webinar.... I don't think that any of the directors said Step scores as a key determinant of who to interview or select. The first hour was recorded and would be available for review soon.... You might say it is kind of their implicit bias, but as an observation, I have seen, anecdotally, great matches even for poor test-takers.

 

[Lucca]

Earlier this week, we had our first PSTP webinar.... I don't think that any of the directors said Step scores as a key determinant of who to interview or select. The first hour was recorded and would be available for review soon.... You might say it is kind of their implicit bias, but as an observation, I have seen, anecdotally. great matches even for poor test-takers.

where will it be posted ?

 

[MSTPadvocate]

Earlier this week, we had our first PSTP webinar.... I don't think that any of the directors said Step scores as a key determinant of who to interview or select. The first hour was recorded and would be available for review soon.... You might say it is kind of their implicit bias, but as an observation, I have seen, anecdotally, great matches even for poor test-takers.

The experience in our program is the same except in fields that aren't as friendly to physician scientists.

 

[Seihai]

The experience in our program is the same except in fields that aren't as friendly to physician scientists.

Curious, which fields would you say are the most friendly versus the least friendly? IM seems like the most obvious friendly choice, and I'm thinking some of the surgical subspecialties are the least friendly, but I was wondering if that assumption was correct.