The most important section on the MCAT is the Verbal

[FreeMeDoctor]

I talked to an admin counselor and read on the AMCAS web site that there have been studies done that most correlated medical school success with high verbal scores.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheElement]

So if you get like a mediocre verbal score (8, 9) how much of a disadvantage are you at? I would rather not retake the test just for the sake of bumping up verbal...

 

[howdy2u]

It's just statistics! Correlations can be found everywhere...especially if you play around with the numbers long enough. It's absolutely ridiculous to compare VR with Step I (medical school) success. Basically, it's equivalent to finding that people with white cats are more likely to have heart disease.

 

[werd]

i've heard about this correlation as well; even though there's some data, it's my impression that a minority (but some) of med schools actually weigh verbal more. personally, verbal was my worst mcat section (10) and i was top 5% of my class. obviously, this makes me skeptical about the whole relationship.

 

[BrokenGlass]

It's just statistics! Correlations can be found everywhere...especially if you play around with the numbers long enough. It's absolutely ridiculous to compare VR with Step I (medical school) success. Basically, it's equivalent to finding that people with white cats are more likely to have heart disease.

They are.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Wikipedia says different, and it cites its sources.

 

[pezzang]

I say OP's statement is inaccurate and ambiguous. All sections of the MCAT are equally important; otherwise, MCAT would consist of VR.

 

[Schaden Freud]

Well no it's not totally ridiculous. They do correlate quite well, despite what you may like to believe. Although Biological Sciences correlates better, if my memory serves me correctly.

It's just statistics! Correlations can be found everywhere...especially if you play around with the numbers long enough. It's absolutely ridiculous to compare VR with Step I (medical school) success. Basically, it's equivalent to finding that people with white cats are more likely to have heart disease.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

This myth has been swirling about since they introduced the current format of the MCAT in 1991. There is talk about some study that was done to correlate VR scores to board scores, but in all the years of searching and asking adcoms and AAMC people, no one seems to know about it. There is no reference to it in all of the AAMC studies listed at their website (the last time I looked in earnest). I think you'd have better luck finding a Euroleague soccer player just stand up rather than pretend to be hurt after the ball's been stolen from him than you would to find this supposed study. There are correlation studies, but no declaration that VR is the ultimate predictor.

The AAMC folks definitely keep tabs on all sorts of statistics, but the only one that really matters is that since 1991 through last year, the highest sectional score for matriculants to medical school is the BS section. Don't you think that if verbal reasoning was the most important section, that the adcom people would take that into account and it would end up being the highest average sectional score? If BS has the highest average year in and year out, that tends to support the notion that BS is the most important section. Just my $0.02.

 

[shortitalian]

In my interview last year, one of the questions I got was, "Do you know which section score correlates the best with success in medical school?"

I answered "verbal," and they said I was correct. The reason they asked the question is that my verbal score was the lowest of my three subtests, and I believe they really asked the question to try to rattle me, not to throw a statistic in my face. I handled it well, however, and when they asked about it further, I just answered honestly, and they were fine with that.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

This myth has been swirling about since they introduced the current format of the MCAT in 1991. There is talk about some study that was done to correlate VR scores to board scores, but in all the years of searching and asking adcoms and AAMC people, no one seems to know about it. There is no reference to it in all of the AAMC studies listed at their website (the last time I looked in earnest). I think you'd have better luck finding a Euroleague soccer player just stand up rather than pretend to be hurt after the ball's been stolen from him than you would to find this supposed study.

Correct. Long did I seek the study but only came across studies that show BS has the most correlation with step 1.

 

[shortitalian]

In my interview last year, one of the questions I got was, "Do you know which section score correlates the best with success in medical school?"

I have been asked by someone to elaborate on the other questions they asked about this, so here you go:

They followed by first asking why I didn't score well on that subtest. I told them that I was surprised at my low score, as well. I told them I had taken the Kaplan prep course and how I never got below at least a 9 or 10 on any of the Kaplan practice tests.

They said: "So, it is safe to say that because you were doing well on those that you didn't study as much for the verbal reasoning?"

And I said, "Yes, that's true."

They seemed perfectly happy with my response, since I was honest about not studying it as much, rather than complaining about the test itself or saying that it was a fluke.

 

[osli]

...since 1991 through last year, the highest sectional score for matriculants to medical school is the BS section. Don't you think that if verbal reasoning was the most important section, that the adcom people would take that into account and it would end up being the highest average sectional score? If BS has the highest average year in and year out, that tends to support the notion that BS is the most important section.

An equally valid hypothesis is that since most premed applicants are from biosciences majors, the BS section will on average be the section MCAT takers were best prepared for.

You might argue that if the section averages for all test takers (not just matriculants) were essentially equal (VR=BS=PS, and I don't know if that is the case or not) then a greater matriculating BS average shows its relative importance to adcoms. Again, however, an alternative hypothesis is that non-traditional students are less well prepared for the BS than their pre-med biosciences counterparts, and drag down the average; and since non-traditional students are not as likely to have the amount of medically related shadowing/research/volunteer EC's as traditional pre-med students it could be something other than BS scores that prevent them from matriculating.

Just highlighting the fallacy of correlation vs. causation. The correlation is undeniable, but you can't make a causative assumption.