Study on validity of the MCAT

[NontradICUdoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.academicmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/80/10/910

 

[medhacker]

http://www.academicmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/80/10/910

If only someone other than the actual AAMC would perform these studies, then one could afford the studies enough credibility.

 

[.edu-MD]

If only someone other than the actual AAMC would perform these studies, then one could afford the studies enough credibility.

Even so, Figure 3 is pretty telling.

Fig 3d suggests that everyone with Writing Sample scores of "K" have pretty much the same rates of clerkship and academic distinction. (J and K appear to have higher rates of difficulty but J has the about the same rate of distinction as the non-K scores.) So it seems that any score of L and above and you're golden because the rates of academic difficulty are only about 10% for each of those scores.

VR scores of 6 and above also all have rates of <10% for academic difficulty. Likewise, BS scores of >=7 and PS scores of >=7.

It would've been interesting to see how much each subsection contributed to the USMLE scores. But of course if they did that, I would guess that the WS would have very little correlation and they'd have to cover up the compelling evidence to remove it.

 

[ImmunoNut]

If only someone other than the actual AAMC would perform these studies, then one could afford the studies enough credibility.

Strongly Strongly agree. It is amazing how studies correlate with the views of those organizations funding them when you actually look into WHO is controlling the money going into them. Not just in this case either. I've learned to be skeptical.

 

[shantster]

Strongly Strongly agree. It is amazing how studies correlate with the views of those organizations funding them when you actually look into WHO is controlling the money going into them. Not just in this case either. I've learned to be skeptical.

That's so true. Whenever I read articles, I check to see whether there is the statement at the end that says that none of the people conducting the study have any financial attachments (or however it's worded) to the research.

 

[PHARMD_Maybe?]

Strongly Strongly agree. It is amazing how studies correlate with the views of those organizations funding them when you actually look into WHO is controlling the money going into them. Not just in this case either. I've learned to be skeptical.

Very true. One can always make the numbers look good. Just look at Bush's "No Children Left Behind" program in Texas. Those 2 - 5% dropout rates appeared nice until invetigators from several different independent sources found the real numbers to be around 30 - 50%. Never trust sources with an interest in their product. Just like Exxon mobil is not making billions right now. I saw a spokesperson the other night saying to the effect that they are not making that much money off of the current gas situation because of there continued search for cleaner fuel that is not depended on foreign oil. Just check their quarterly reports over the last year. Enough said. Keep your eyes and ears open. The truth usually is somewhere in the middle. Later,

 

[Crazy Canuck]

‘There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.’
-Disraeli

 

[SearsTower]

valid or not, that's how m. schools see u, so too dang bad.

 

[Scewby Doo 1973]

i'd be one of the improbable cases of students who had double digits on all three sections, and PLENTY of academic difficulty. <---at least one data point in opposition.