The average LizzyM score of SDN!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

What is your LizzyM score? (Please read OP before answering)

  • 55-57

  • 58-60

  • 61-63

  • 64-66

  • 67-69

  • 70-72

  • 73-75

  • 76-78

  • 79-81

  • 81+


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the poll is only viewable if you vote. Many people haven't even taken the MCAT yet but will likely vote anyways to be able to see the results, so I'm sure there's a good amount of inaccurate votes here.
The flip side of that is if it's open many people will take a quick peek and dip out without voting. Regardless I should make a note that I'll post the results later

Members don't see this ad.
 
335 and counting
 
Are we doing most recent MCAT or averaging?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Are we doing most recent MCAT or averaging?
Good point! It's too late to ask people to average I think. I'm assuming most people intuitively put their most recent score. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and make a note in the OP.
 
Curious to know what the percentage/ratio is in regards to new vs old mcat for the 81+ group.
I feel like I've seen so many more 520+ here than 40+ over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Curious to know what the percentage/ratio is in regards to new vs old mcat for the 81+ group.
I feel like I've seen so many more 520+ here than 40+ over the years.

I feel that way too. But remember a 520 is only a 37. 39+ is a perfect score on the new MCAT
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Let's see if I can get another wave
 
There were alot of forms/versions on the old MCAT where it wasnt even possible to hit 45(ie some sections you couldnt get more than a 14). It's possible the same thing has happened with this current MCAT; a 528 is literally impossible for some versions of the test.
 
There was a good thread already talking about how the new MCAT falsely seems to be "trending higher" and it's due to condensing upper ranges. Eg 13-15 V are all now equivalent to a 132, same with 14-15 PS. It seems at first glance to be trending higher because people who previously would get subsections shy of max now appear to be scoring perfectly (for example a 14/13/15 score, three points shy of max, would now be a 132/132/132 perfect score for those sections).
 
There was a good thread already talking about how the new MCAT falsely seems to be "trending higher" and it's due to condensing upper ranges. Eg 13-15 V are all now equivalent to a 132, same with 14-15 PS. It seems at first glance to be trending higher because people who previously would get subsections shy of max now appear to be scoring perfectly (for example a 14/13/15 score, three points shy of max, would now be a 132/132/132 perfect score for those sections).

It goes both ways honestly in terms of arguing which test is "trending higher".

On the old MCAT, 57th percentile in the Bio section was good enough to get you a 10. 38th percentile or something I think could get you a 9. The old bio section had a level of inflation compared to the other sections and the new MCAT has done a better job addressing that.

At the same time psych/soc complicates things. In many ways its like another verbal section in terms of scoring and distribution. Everybody thinks the psych/soc material is easy and they have to create a scoring distribution so only X amount of people get a 128, 129 etc. On the scored FL the AAMC released, I know somebody who got 89% correct and that only amounted to a 128. For bio and physical sciences, that was good enough for close to a 130. So in many ways the addition of psych/soc is going to dampen alot of scores by it being similar to verbal. There are many many people who on the old test were able to ride out the fact they could ace the sciences and do merely decent in verbal and still hit 37+. But this new test makes that harder by diluting out hte weight the science sections carry.

For example 13/10/13 was a 36 on the old scale.

On the new scale if 130 is a 13 and 127 is a 10 well all of a sudden if you have a 127 in psych/soc you end up with
130/127/130/127: 514----equivalent to a 33.

Note I dont think either test is harder than the other. I took the new MCAT last year and thought it was at the level of old AAMC FL's and was a very similar test in style. But I do think there are people with certain strengths(ie acing the sciences, but only 70th-85th percentile caliber verbal performers) who this test will be harder for because of that psych/soc section which has similarites to the verbal. It was easy to separate the competition for the science section; it's not so easy to do so for the psych/soc.
 
It goes both ways honestly in terms of arguing which test is "trending higher".

On the old MCAT, 57th percentile in the Bio section was good enough to get you a 10. 38th percentile or something I think could get you a 9. The old bio section had a level of inflation compared to the other sections and the new MCAT has done a better job addressing that.

At the same time psych/soc complicates things. In many ways its like another verbal section in terms of scoring and distribution. Everybody thinks the psych/soc material is easy and they have to create a scoring distribution so only X amount of people get a 128, 129 etc. On the scored FL the AAMC released, I know somebody who got 89% correct and that only amounted to a 128. For bio and physical sciences, that was good enough for close to a 130. So in many ways the addition of psych/soc is going to dampen alot of scores by it being similar to verbal. There are many many people who on the old test were able to ride out the fact they could ace the sciences and do merely decent in verbal and still hit 37+. But this new test makes that harder by diluting out hte weight the science sections carry.

For example 13/10/13 was a 36 on the old scale.

On the new scale if 130 is a 13 and 127 is a 10 well all of a sudden if you have a 127 in psych/soc you end up with
130/127/130/127: 514----equivalent to a 33.

Note I dont think either test is harder than the other. I took the new MCAT last year and thought it was at the level of old AAMC FL's and was a very similar test in style. But I do think there are people with certain strengths(ie acing the sciences, but only 70th-85th percentile caliber verbal performers) who this test will be harder for because of that psych/soc section which has similarites to the verbal. It was easy to separate the competition for the science section; it's not so easy to do so for the psych/soc.
Is psych socio really more similar to CARS than to sciences though? I was under the impression it still involved a lot of memorizing terms + theories and was based on research-related passages. Will certainly be interesting to hear how the new subsections correlate to med school performance + step scores in a few years, my bet is bio > chem > psych >> cars.
 
Is psych socio really more similar to CARS than to sciences though? I was under the impression it still involved a lot of memorizing terms + theories and was based on research-related passages. Will certainly be interesting to hear how the new subsections correlate to med school performance + step scores in a few years, my bet is bio > chem > psych >> cars.

Psych/Soc is more similar to Bio than CARS. Totally different sections. You can employ some of the same strategies but there have been a lot of Psych questions that ask you to know certain concepts / terms / experiments from the coursework and the psych answers typically ask you to interpret the results of experiments. I say this based on the AAMC Question Packs and the AAMC sample test.

I do believe it's true that the section is comparably easier and as a result one would need a better raw score to achieve the same scaled score as say the Chem section which is heads-and-shoulders harder than any other section imo.
 
It goes both ways honestly in terms of arguing which test is "trending higher".

On the old MCAT, 57th percentile in the Bio section was good enough to get you a 10. 38th percentile or something I think could get you a 9. The old bio section had a level of inflation compared to the other sections and the new MCAT has done a better job addressing that.

At the same time psych/soc complicates things. In many ways its like another verbal section in terms of scoring and distribution. Everybody thinks the psych/soc material is easy and they have to create a scoring distribution so only X amount of people get a 128, 129 etc. On the scored FL the AAMC released, I know somebody who got 89% correct and that only amounted to a 128. For bio and physical sciences, that was good enough for close to a 130. So in many ways the addition of psych/soc is going to dampen alot of scores by it being similar to verbal. There are many many people who on the old test were able to ride out the fact they could ace the sciences and do merely decent in verbal and still hit 37+. But this new test makes that harder by diluting out hte weight the science sections carry.

For example 13/10/13 was a 36 on the old scale.

On the new scale if 130 is a 13 and 127 is a 10 well all of a sudden if you have a 127 in psych/soc you end up with
130/127/130/127: 514----equivalent to a 33.

Note I dont think either test is harder than the other. I took the new MCAT last year and thought it was at the level of old AAMC FL's and was a very similar test in style. But I do think there are people with certain strengths(ie acing the sciences, but only 70th-85th percentile caliber verbal performers) who this test will be harder for because of that psych/soc section which has similarites to the verbal. It was easy to separate the competition for the science section; it's not so easy to do so for the psych/soc.
Is psych socio really more similar to CARS than to sciences though? I was under the impression it still involved a lot of memorizing terms + theories and was based on research-related passages. Will certainly be interesting to hear how the new subsections correlate to med school performance + step scores in a few years, my bet is bio > chem > psych >> cars.
Psych/Soc is more similar to Bio than CARS. Totally different sections. You can employ some of the same strategies but there have been a lot of Psych questions that ask you to know certain concepts / terms / experiments from the coursework and the psych answers typically ask you to interpret the results of experiments. I say this based on the AAMC Question Packs and the AAMC sample test.

So tl;dr, psych is similar to bio and very different from verbal. So that'd mean that the science guys Grapes mentioned have a bigger advantage in the new MCAT?
 
Is psych socio really more similar to CARS than to sciences though? I was under the impression it still involved a lot of memorizing terms + theories and was based on research-related passages. Will certainly be interesting to hear how the new subsections correlate to med school performance + step scores in a few years, my bet is bio > chem > psych >> cars.

Psych/Soc is more similar to Bio than CARS. Totally different sections. You can employ some of the same strategies but there have been a lot of Psych questions that ask you to know certain concepts / terms / experiments from the coursework and the psych answers typically ask you to interpret the results of experiments. I say this based on the AAMC Question Packs and the AAMC sample test.

I do believe it's true that the section is comparably easier and as a result one would need a better raw score to achieve the same scaled score as say the Chem section which is heads-and-shoulders harder than any other section imo.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. There is a boat load of memorizing terms for the psych/soc section this is true. But there is also a fair amount of passage analysis. I found psych/soc on the real deal more similar to CARs than Bio but I can see the argument the other way around. I think more than anything though the psych/soc section is a work in progress; Idont think itll look like what it is now 10 years down the road. I dont think AAMC when they made this section intended for it to be a test of how many terms you can memorize and be familiar with.

The better argument and what I guess I'm really trying to get at though is it is harder to separate out people for the psych/soc section. The material is frankly rather easy and alot of it is high school level. So in many ways I dont think there is a great correlation between those who are great at sciences and those who are great at psych/soc. The psych/soc adds another section that if you want a top score you have to ace and considering how hard the curve is and how eveyrbody thinks the material is easy, it is a section that provides obstacles for sure.

I know gyngyn has said from his glancing and looking over the psych/soc section he's found that to be most representative of what medicine is like and the problems you have to encounter and solve on a daily basis and the type of thinking involved. I know others involved in admission who feel this way; hence probably one of hte reasons why the MCAT changed towards adding it. Trying to say which section correlates best with Step scores is always tricky and frankly not all that fruitful. The individual correlation between any one section just wont ever be that strong. Me personally, for those gunning for academic and research focused careers, the bio section might correlate best with future success. For others, I honestly think there's a fair argument psych/soc and CARs are the two sections with the skills most relevant to success in medicine and standardized exams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Personally I believe people on SDN on average will have a higher LizzyM school than pre-meds at your college on average.
My reasons:
1.This is a pre-med forum which is frequently visited by pre-meds who seek the best
2.People on these forums are generally invested in the pre-med process since freshman year of college
3.People on this forums have the opportunity to converse with current medical students, adcoms, residents, and attendings..(lots of knowledge to be gained)

It's like looking on college confidential, on average people on college confidential do better lol
 
I didn't think the psych/soc was anything like cars. Most of it was just testing content knowledge and basic experimental analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Different strokes for different folks I guess. There is a boat load of memorizing terms for the psych/soc section this is true. But there is also a fair amount of passage analysis. I found psych/soc on the real deal more similar to CARs than Bio but I can see the argument the other way around. I think more than anything though the psych/soc section is a work in progress; Idont think itll look like what it is now 10 years down the road. I dont think AAMC when they made this section intended for it to be a test of how many terms you can memorize and be familiar with.

The better argument and what I guess I'm really trying to get at though is it is harder to separate out people for the psych/soc section. The material is frankly rather easy and alot of it is high school level. So in many ways I dont think there is a great correlation between those who are great at sciences and those who are great at psych/soc. The psych/soc adds another section that if you want a top score you have to ace and considering how hard the curve is and how eveyrbody thinks the material is easy, it is a section that provides obstacles for sure.

I know gyngyn has said from his glancing and looking over the psych/soc section he's found that to be most representative of what medicine is like and the problems you have to encounter and solve on a daily basis and the type of thinking involved. I know others involved in admission who feel this way; hence probably one of hte reasons why the MCAT changed towards adding it. Trying to say which section correlates best with Step scores is always tricky and frankly not all that fruitful. The individual correlation between any one section just wont ever be that strong. Me personally, for those gunning for academic and research focused careers, the bio section might correlate best with future success. For others, I honestly think there's a fair argument psych/soc and CARs are the two sections with the skills most relevant to success in medicine and standardized exams.

Interesting that you say that, maybe I'll have that experience on the real thing but so far this has not been my experience with psych/soc.

It's funny that adcoms may feel that way as well because you are right about the psych section material being essentially high school level. It's more of a necessary nuisance than a section I feel challenged by like bio and Chem.
 
Interesting that you say that, maybe I'll have that experience on the real thing but so far this has not been my experience with psych/soc.

It's funny that adcoms may feel that way as well because you are right about the psych section material being essentially high school level. It's more of a necessary nuisance than a section I feel challenged by like bio and Chem.

I did find the real deal psych/soc to be somewhat different than the AAMC Sample practice test. I took a look at the section bank recently from a friend that appears to be somewhat more along the lines of what I saw on test day(although a little easier). I do agree though regardless the psych/soc section is just a cluster dump of terms to memorize and there are questions that are largely testing how well you memorized a term.

The psych/soc section I also found is where AAMC loves to pull some of those tricky type questions, you know the type you see in CARs/Verbal alot the types of questions full of misnomers, false ideas, involving reading details super super carefully, questions full of traps etc. Again it just comes across as a section where they have to do all they can to try to make basic high school level material as challenging as possible to test on. The section has alot of promise and I think there are some really solid questions from the section bank but as of now the section as a whole just seems like a mess that itll take a couple years for the AAMC to work out for themselves and experiment with. I dont think the end product of theirs is going to involve this much focus on memorizing terms. In theory though, if AAMC can figure the section out I think it has the potential to be the "best" section at simulating what medicine is like and testing skills that most correlate to the field. But we arent close to there yet.
 
I actually find the psych/sociology section to be most similar to CARS. Like CARS, almost all of the answers are all right there in the passages (which is where I think people go wrong on this section, it's really just common sense and critical thinking). Of course, unlike CARS, there are some questions that require you to have stuff memorized, but I would still say the section resembles CARS more than it does chem/phys or bio.
And n=1, but I'm definitely not a "science" person, did horrible on chem/phys and OK on bio, but I did great on CARS and psych/sociology.
 
Top