The Official May 22, 2015 MCAT Thread

[fenderboi930]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I think many of you will agree that today is a great day to officially prepare for the May 22nd MCAT!!!

I was against the April 2015 MCAT because a typical 3 month schedule doesn't seem to work for
students and/or working test takers. With a little over 4 months of preparation we can go in with confidence!
It's all new and really scary--so let's kick MCAT butt together!!

I was also wondering, wouldn't many professional MCAT test takers and tutors want to take the MCAT 2015 as soon
as possible (April MCAT) so they can better they're material or teaching? Wouldn't that just destroy the curve?

 

[Alkaidius]

Especially if we're being compared to the June 2nd test!! They had basically already taken the test!

POOP! I forgot about those guys. But weren't they few and far between? They were just the small group that experienced technical difficulties, right?

 

[mmcoffee]

so only one person is in the middle

This thread is slightly more hopeful
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/scaled-vs-percentile-score-thread.1143551/

And with that, no more SDN for me today.

 

[xc_stallion92]

so only one person is in the middle

We're not really seeing much from people who scored close to the mean, but it sure seems like those with higher prelims are getting screwed.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Ugh and the waiting game begins yet again

 

[reticence]

We're not really seeing much from people who scored close to the mean, but it sure seems like those with higher prelims are getting screwed.

April scores were dependent on May scores so maybe the May 22 people are bringing them down. Kind of curious if that means our true percentiles might be higher than our prelims on the other side of the coin.

 

[xc_stallion92]

April scores were dependent on May scores so maybe the May 22 people are bringing them down. Kind of curious if that means our true percentiles might be higher than our prelims on the other side of the coin.

Well, if that's the case I'd imagine ours are based on June 2, and that's an entire group of people who had already taken the test, so...

 

[reticence]

Well, if that's the case I'd imagine ours are based on June 2, and that's an entire group of people who had already taken the test, so...

Had a quick look through the June 2 retake thread. Not too many posts but they all said PS was tougher than May 22. Not much else, though.

At any rate I think all of April/May/June 2 were interdependent. June 2 didn't have nearly as many people taking as April/May so it wouldn't affect our scores as much April testers.

 

[CarmenCygni]

I wonder if AAMC officials ever come on here and just laugh at how much we're wracking our brains to predict this stuff. They're probably like "we actually just have a chicken in the back that sh*ts somewhere on a line that represents your percentile range, and that's what you get."

C'mon chicken.

 

[cottoncandy500]

Any one else disturbed by how people are saying they're lower than their overall range? Maybe ours will be more accurately predicted bc larger sample size? *prays*

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I think ours will be more accurate bc they're more recent. (Sorry broke my promise of not speculating)

 

[Alkaidius]

To further fuel our frenzy. I skimmed the April thread and tallied 4 people out of 19 that went outside their Preliminary. That's 21%. Which is not 10%.

 

[HelpMe212]

Well one person in the April forum reported getting a 526 so I wouldn't be too worried. AAMC just doesn't make sense in how they calculate things...

 

[Affiche]

Larger issue: adcoms are apparently misreading the percentile conversion on the old scale, which means they're interpreting our new scores to be 1 score less than what it actually converts to. Example: a 507 should convert to a 30 based on the old scale, but one adcom is rounding it to be a 29.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ments-from-med-schools.1143566/#post-16589956

 

[Dreamstoo]

Well one person in the April forum reported getting a 526 so I wouldn't be too worried. AAMC just doesn't make sense in how they calculate things...

Crazy to see he said he was averaging 510 on TPR and got a 526. Now I'm actually not to upset about my mid 490 average on them 🙂.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Larger issue: adcoms are apparently misreading the percentile conversion on the old scale, which means they're interpreting our new scores to be 1 score less than what it actually converts to. Example: a 507 should convert to a 30 based on the old scale, but one adcom is rounding it to be a 29.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ments-from-med-schools.1143566/#post-16589956

lol I replied to that. was a bit sassy oh well

 

[Affiche]

Lmaoo I look like a raging b*tch in that thread, but I think it's absolutely unacceptable for an adcom to think it's okay to misread a damn conversion chart.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Lmaoo I look like a raging b*tch in that thread, but I think it's absolutely unacceptable for an adcom to think it's okay to misread a damn conversion chart.

lol now so do I, but it's still pissing me off that our percentiles are being translated to the old score and now we are at a disadvantage?!

 

[meow+or_never]

Kaplan is definitely lacking for psych. For the rest of the sections it was pretty good, but I thought it was a bit weak on bio too.

okay true, I did not study much for psych b/c I had just taken Lifespan Developmental Psychology which covered almost everything

 

[Glazedonutlove]

lol whatever we don't really have any control

 

[connie95]

Lmaoo I look like a raging b*tch in that thread, but I think it's absolutely unacceptable for an adcom to think it's okay to misread a damn conversion chart.

lol now so do I, but it's still pissing me off that our percentiles are being translated to the old score and now we are at a disadvantage?!

Perhaps this is just speculation…I hope all adcoms don't score us a point lower! I've never heard of that before

 

[xc_stallion92]

Larger issue: adcoms are apparently misreading the percentile conversion on the old scale, which means they're interpreting our new scores to be 1 score less than what it actually converts to. Example: a 507 should convert to a 30 based on the old scale, but one adcom is rounding it to be a 29.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ments-from-med-schools.1143566/#post-16589956

What I took from that thread:

"Oh, looks like you guys are right, we're not interpreting them correctly. Oh well, we're going to keep doing things the wrong way. I guess our only other option would be to keep doing things the wrong way and NOT tell you about it. Why do you premeds care anyway? It's not like the MCAT is important lol."

 

[Glazedonutlove]

lmao I told Rachie I would stop caring but can't!

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

Adcoms at my school told me there was a conference they were going to where they would learn how to interpret the scores sometime in mid June. Maybe that'll help, once that happens?

Also, does the number really matter? If they see someone with a 30 and 76th percentile and someone with a 508 in the 77th percentile, then the 508 will obviously look better from the percentiles alone, regardless of any floors or ceilings. As long as they look at percentiles that way, it shouldn't be too difficult to interpret- they just have to ignore the numerical score.

 

[allanMED15]

It wouldn't make any sense for them to try and covert to the old score. There's a whole other section that is factored into the final percentile. The only way that could serve as an accurate comparison would be strictly by percentiles. Certainly the adcom members are not as dumb as they are being made out to be on here.

 

[Affiche]

@chocoholicsoxfan I don't think they see the percentile of the old score, just the scaled score, which is what's causing the big debate. Example, they'll see someone's 30 and by misreading the chart, they're inflating the percentile of a 30 to be 79th percentile and up, when actually it's 79th percentile and down. This is an issue because then when they see a 508 at 77th percentile, that person actually scored higher than the 76th percentile that scored a 30, but the adcom is reading the chart incorrectly and thus interprets a 508 to convert to a 29, a lower score than the 76th percentile with a 30.

 

[allanMED15]

@chocoholicsoxfan I don't think they see the percentile of the old score, just the scaled score, which is what's causing the big debate.

Now I see the issue. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

@chocoholicsoxfan I don't think they see the percentile of the old score, just the scaled score, which is what's causing the big debate. Example, they'll see someone's 30 and by misreading the chart, they're inflating the percentile of a 30 to be 79th percentile and up, when actually it's 79th percentile and down. This is an issue because then when they see a 508 at 77th percentile, that person actually scored higher than the 76th percentile that scored a 30, but the adcom is reading the chart incorrectly and thus interprets a 508 to convert to a 29, a lower score than the 76th percentile with a 30.

People with old scores were saying that the percentile is now included on the report. Idk if that's the same report that goes to medical schools or not though.

 

[Captain_Underpants]

Chem/phys: 82-97
CARS: 76-91
Bio: 72-87
P/S: 81-96
Overall: 80-90

80th percentile is like just barely typically accepted right? I'm happy but not too excited too. I'm wondering if I should retake?

Id be thrilled with that

 

[Affiche]

What I took from that thread:

"Oh, looks like you guys are right, we're not interpreting them correctly. Oh well, we're going to keep doing things the wrong way. I guess our only other option would be to keep doing things the wrong way and NOT tell you about it. Why do you premeds care anyway? It's not like the MCAT is important lol."

hahahaha and also "we will never compare the old MCAT to the new MCAT. Oh wait, yes we will"

 

[HelpMe212]

People with old scores were saying that the percentile is now included on the report. Idk if that's the same report that goes to medical schools or not though.

I took the old MCAT and the new one. When I submitted my application, the percentiles were included with my MCAT score in the scores section

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

I took the old MCAT and the new one. When I submitted my application, the percentiles were included with my MCAT score in the scores section

Well then, I guess that settles that, so there's no need to stress out about it!

 

[xc_stallion92]

Well then, I guess that settles that, so there's no need to stress out about it!

I agree, as long as adcoms are willing to change how they look at the old MCAT and start appraising them in terms of percentiles rather than scores.

 

[chocoholicsoxfan]

I agree, as long as adcoms are willing to change how they look at the old MCAT and start appraising them in terms of percentiles rather than scores.

I agree. And when you're looking at literally thousands of apps, I think you reach a point where you start to naturally equate percentiles and scores anyway, even if it does require changing your original perception a bit. I bet that by the 500th app, they'll become accustomed enough, just by virtue of seeing so many scores and their affiliated percentiles.

 

[panda16]

Guys, promise me that in two weeks we will handle this with class and calm.

Breathe out, breathe in.

 

[0_o]

I promise

 

[Xenith]

Oops keep posting in the April thread. Here is what I was gonna ask you guys:

So far I havn't seen a single person with a preliminary percentile of 90-100 (with all sections 85-100) score below a 95th percentile. Did I miss something?

 

[panda16]

Oops keep posting in the April thread. Here is what I was gonna ask you guys:

So far I havn't seen a single person with a preliminary percentile of 90-100 (with all sections 85-100) score below a 95th percentile. Did I miss something?

That would make sense to me. There would have to be the variations and the different levels in that 90-100 range. I saw a LOT of people who had the 90-100 but didn't have 85-100 for all the sections, meaning that they would theoretically be occupying the Lower range of the 90-100.

 

[Alkaidius]

Guys, promise me that in two weeks we will handle this with class and calm.

Don't tell me how to live my life!

/joke?

 

[0_o]

Anyone working night shift tonight?

 

[VegasPreMed]

Nope. Off in an hour though. =)

 

[xc_stallion92]

That would make sense to me. There would have to be the variations and the different levels in that 90-100 range. I saw a LOT of people who had the 90-100 but didn't have 85-100 for all the sections, meaning that they would theoretically be occupying the Lower range of the 90-100.

Not necessarily. What about applicant A w/ 89, 89, 92, 93, and applicant B w/ 98, 99, 99, 82?

 

[Xenith]

Not necessarily. What about applicant A w/ 89, 89, 92, 93, and applicant B w/ 98, 99, 99, 82?

Not sure what you are trying to say. You can't average percentiles if that is what you meant. Ultimately it does make sense that the likelihood of someone with all 85-100 will have a higher total percentile than someone with 3 85-100 and 1 slightly lower. The reason is that the chance of scoring on either extreme of your range (especially the higher) is very low. So far I have yet to see a person with 4 85-100 score below a 95 percentile.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Anyone working night shift tonight?

no but just got back from a 10 hour lab and IDK how I can work on anything when I'm so tired!

 

[CarmenCygni]

PMs tonight but NOCs tmrw! Ah the life of a nurse 🙂

 

[mmcoffee]

I haven't seen anyone with an 82-97 range with their converted score yet.... such a large, large range.... 🙁

 

[xc_stallion92]

Not sure what you are trying to say. You can't average percentiles if that is what you meant. Ultimately it does make sense that the likelihood of someone with all 85-100 will have a higher total percentile than someone with 3 85-100 and 1 slightly lower. The reason is that the chance of scoring on either extreme of your range (especially the higher) is very low. So far I have yet to see a person with 4 85-100 score below a 95 percentile.

I'm saying that someone who got three 132's and a 125 (I'll use scores this time) would have a better overall score than someone who got four 130's. There's such a relatively large range of numerical scores between 85 and 100 percentiles that it's impossible to guess how two people who ended up with 90-100 overall compare to each other, regardless of what their section percentiles were. What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible for someone with three 85-100's to score higher than someone with four, and not all that unrealistic of a situation. I wasn't really disagreeing with your original post, but replying to panda's response to it.

 

[yellowjellybean]

Hey y'all!

OK so my overall prelim was 90-100. I have a very stupid question to ask. Is it still 5% chance that I score under and 5% chance that I score over 100? Since over 100 is not possible? I'm still nervous because I have 3 not so great scores from the old MCAT and didn't feel that great about my answers/had to guess on quite a few during test day.

Thanks

 

[Chemstudent]

Every person I saw so far with section percentiles of 85-100 scored 93+(129+) on those sections.

 

[dovelj465]

My prelim scores are:
Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems: 82% - 97%
Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills: 82% - 97%
Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems: 72% - 87%
Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior 85% - 100%
MCAT Total Score: 84% - 94%

Overall GPA 3.85. Cell/Molec Bio major, Spanish minor.
I have research experience, have studied abroad, have gone on a medical mission trip, have strong leadership/EC's, and ~50 hours of shadowing

Just wondering what types of schools I have a good shot at getting into..
Thanks! 🙂

 

[hiiiworld]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't our percentiles be more accurate? They were calculated when considering april's scores in mind and the June 2nd scores (they came out on the same day) so unless the June 20 test takers mess things up, ours (in theory) should be closer to the mean of the confidence interval since there's a larger N. Right??