Variability in MCAT scores

[Chrome19]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have been noticing students posting improved scores on the real deal compared to their practice tests. For example, a student might score a 32/33 on AAMC 11 or so, and score 37/38 on the real deal.

Given this tendency for variable scores, why do adcoms place such a premium on scoring 35+? Is there any real measurable difference in intellectual ability between a 32 and a 36, especially when one considers these scores could be switched given unspecified contingencies?

 

[TheMightyBoosh]

I have been noticing students posting improved scores on the real deal compared to their practice tests. For example, a student might score a 32/33 on AAMC 11 or so, and score 37/38 on the real deal.

Given this tendency for variable scores, why do adcoms place such a premium on scoring 35+? Is there any real measurable difference in intellectual ability between a 32 and a 36, especially when one considers these scores could be switched given unspecified contingencies?

Probably not, but there are a lot of contingencies that adcoms can't control when looking at applicants, so they have to go off some system that statistically works to some degree. You really have no idea how good of a doctor someone will be until you throw them into residency and see how they perform. But obviously you want some assurance so you have to set up some system that measures intelligence, work ethic, character, etc.

 

[TheMightyBoosh]

Having said that, I stick to the belief that my score being 3.5 points about my average is not a fluke and completely reflects my intelligence 😛.

 

[Chrome19]

Probably not, but there are a lot of contingencies that adcoms can't control when looking at applicants, so they have to go off some system that statistically works to some degree. You really have no idea how good of a doctor someone will be until you throw them into residency and see how they perform. But obviously you want some assurance so you have to set up some system that measures intelligence, work ethic, character, etc.

I think scoring 27+ (with balanced scores, especially in the sciences) is sufficient assurance; I would even go as low as 24 on the MCAT. There are people able to score 38+ consistently due to good test-taking, intelligence, or what have you. I personally think the decision to ***** after 35+ scorers is for schools' bragging rights (think WashU).

 

[Chrome19]

Having said that, I stick to the belief that my score being 3.5 points about my average is not a fluke and completely reflects my intelligence 😛.

If I scored 3.5 pts over my average I would've scored a 36-37. Not enough butterflies flapped their wings that day 👎

 

[liveoak]

Given this tendency for variable scores, why do adcoms place such a premium on scoring 35+? Is there any real measurable difference in intellectual ability between a 32 and a 36, especially when one considers these scores could be switched given unspecified contingencies?

because it's a desperate way for top schools to distinguish themselves. top schools are more like businesses, and they can't deal with the fact that med schools are a lot more equal than they want them to be. that being said, much love to people getting a 35+. great job. 👍

 

[TheMightyBoosh]

I think scoring 27+ (with balanced scores, especially in the sciences) is sufficient assurance; I would even go as low as 24 on the MCAT. There are people able to score 38+ consistently due to good test-taking, intelligence, or what have you. I personally think the decision to ***** after 35+ scorers is for schools' bragging rights (think WashU).

You might be right, but to be honest we're going into a profession that is HUGELY based on prestige. My uncle scored in the 93rd precentile on his boards back in the early 2000's and impressed everyone during his interviews, but couldn't match for any ophthalmology programs solely because no one wanted a resident with "American University of the Carribbean" on their list.

It sucks, but it's the reality and the game that we have to play.

 

[TheMightyBoosh]

If I scored 3.5 pts over my average I would've scored a 36-37. Not enough butterflies flapped their wings that day 👎

Yeah assuming you got a 33-34 that's still a really good score. To share another anectode, my uncle got a 27 on his mcat and then rocked his USMLE's in med school. Obviously a case where the MCAT failed to predict success in medical school.

 

[liveoak]

but couldn't match for any ophthalmology programs solely because no one wanted a resident with "American University of the Carribbean" on their list.

too bad. I'd argue he's more valuable coming from there because it would significantly increase the diversity of the resident class.

 

[Chrome19]

Yeah assuming you got a 33-34 that's still a really good score. To share another anectode, my uncle got a 27 on his mcat and then rocked his USMLE's in med school. Obviously a case where the MCAT failed to predict success in medical school.

A 27 MCAT is still good. Many people get in with 27's.

 

[Classof2013PreM]

There are obviously exceptions to the rule where people do exceedingly well on USMLE's but do relatively poorly on the MCAT.

But there is obviously going to be a strong correlation otherwise schools wouldn't weight this test so heavily in admissions.

The MCAT is really just a test of basic sciences. Test taking ability in this context is basically a better understanding of 1st year physics, bio, chemistry, and orgo. If you're not scoring as high as other people, you just don't know it as well. It doesn't boil down to some extra quality like "test taking ability" that makes it seem like some people that don't know the material well somehow answer more questions correctly (or visa versa).

Plain and simple, the MCAT might give you tricky question involving kinematics (or any other topic), if you can solve it it says something about your ability to answer a physics question. If you can't it means that you can't. In that sense it's a pretty accurate measure of your science reasoning abilities.

 

[Chrome19]

There are obviously exceptions to the rule where people do exceedingly well on USMLE's but do relatively poorly on the MCAT.

But there is obviously going to be a strong correlation otherwise schools wouldn't weight this test so heavily in admissions.

The MCAT is really just a test of basic sciences. Test taking ability in this context is basically a better understanding of 1st year physics, bio, chemistry, and orgo. If you're not scoring as high as other people, you just don't know it as well. It doesn't boil down to some extra quality like "test taking ability" that makes it seem like some people that don't know the material well somehow answer more questions correctly (or visa versa).

Plain and simple, the MCAT might give you tricky question involving kinematics (or any other topic), if you can solve it it says something about your ability to answer a physics question. If you can't it means that you can't. In that sense it's a pretty accurate measure of your science reasoning abilities.

I think you are arguing with yourself. Test-taking ability plays a role IN ADDITION to knowledge, intelligence, and some luck, although I think luck plays much less of a role but it's not insignificant.

Secondly, if you think there are reliable differences in intelligence/knowledge inferable from MCAT scores of 32 and 36 then I have a house in the sky to sell you. It's not uncommon to see people drop significantly from practice scores of 37/38 to a 32. Did they get lose their scientific reasoning skills all of a sudden? How about those who make monumental leaps on their actual test? Was that some inexplicable gain of "scientific reasoning ability"?

You are grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand.

 

[muhali3]

This is totally arbitrary on my part.

But I think a 13+ in PS, 14+ BS, and 12+ VR should all be treated as perfect for those respective sections.

Ever since the CBT started, the scale has become ridiculous, especially at the upper ranges.

 

[Classof2013PreM]

I think you are arguing with yourself. Test-taking ability plays a role IN ADDITION to knowledge, intelligence, and some luck, although I think luck plays much less of a role but it's not insignificant.

Secondly, if you think there are reliable differences in intelligence/knowledge inferable from MCAT scores of 32 and 36 then I have a house in the sky to sell you. It's not uncommon to see people drop significantly from practice scores of 37/38 to a 32. Did they get lose their scientific reasoning skills all of a sudden? How about those who make monumental leaps on their actual test? Was that some inexplicable gain of "scientific reasoning ability"?

You are grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand.

I admit, my last post was hastily written and I may have over-reached on a couple points. Test taking ability undoubtedly plays a role, since some people are just better under pressure than others (a point that I failed to account for in my last post)

However, I definitely believe that there are reliable differences between a 32 and a 36 on the MCAT, just as there are differences between a 36 and a 40 or a 28 and a 32.

If you arbitrarily draw the line at 4 points, what's stopping you from extending it one point further and saying that there is no difference between a 32 and a 37? Or a 32 and a 39?

Sure, there are plenty of anecdotes of people scoring much better/worse on the real test compared to practice exams, but I bet most people score around the same level they did on the practices.

EDIT: also, it is actually quite easy to account for swings in people's scores. if material that a person is comfortable with is emphasized on a test, they will score significantly better than if material they are not comfortable with is emphasized.

i would imagine that if a person felt equally comfortable with all the material covered on the MCAT, they would score in the same general range on all of their practice tests. For me, my practice range hovered in a 3 point range, and I scored the same score (39) on three of my five practice tests. Luckily I am a strong test taker (i think i focus better on the real test), so I was able to score three points above my average and score in the low 40's.