What is a good MCAT score? Is it really that hard to get a good score?

[tn4596]

What about 29L??
Provided well above avg EC(not a rockstar status or anything) and great GPA (3.8>)...

I think that is fine assuming the subscore are balanced and you do relatively well on interviews.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kaputt]

Only on SDN is it easy to make an 80th percentile score on one of the most difficult pre-professional tests in existence.

It doesn't stop there. It's 270 or bust in the Step 1 forums.

 

[Chrome19]

LSAT RC section is harder than MCAT's VR section.

You should have mentioned the 172 earlier.

"This person" you keep referring to will do well.

I think MCAT VR is harder since it's more wish-washy. LSAT RC is more logic-driven.

 

[NickNaylor]

It doesn't stop there. It's 270 or bust in the Step 1 forums.

I'm hitting boards prep hard this summer (after first year) and scoring 270s on NBMEs u jelly? It's so easy I don't even need second year.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

 

[Tummytroubles]

Look at the percentages. I think a 30 is around the 80th percentile. Is it easy to score better than 80% of other test takers (ie the people who haven't already been weeded out by the undergrad coursework)? No. Is it impossible? No. To get a 35+, you'd probably need to score higher than 95% of the people, so that obviously might be impossible for some people.

Very true. At least at my school only people with 3.5+ usually took it.

So to sum it up, you have to score in the 80% of people with 3.5+ GPAs.

 

[MegMurry]

Very true. At least at my school only people with 3.5+ usually took it.

So to sum it up, you have to score in the 80% of people with 3.5+ GPAs.

or the 99th%ile of people with 3.0+ GPAs

 

[Ruhroh]

When do people feel that a higher score yields diminishing returns? The difference between a 30 and a 35 is about moving up 15-20 percentile. The difference between a 35, 36, and 37 is about 1 percentile. After that it becomes even less.

I got a 35Q on my MCAT and I want to feel happy about it, but at the same time looking through the MSAR and seeing I am 1-2 points below the median for some of the top schools makes me uneasy. Will these 1-2 points matter THAT much?

It makes me especially mad because on my bio section on test day I had to guess compeletely on 2 questions, and make a 50/50 guess on 3 questions. Out of those 5 questions, I only got 1 right. I prepped my ass off for this test, and I'm sure the large majority of people had to guess on those same questions. Burns me up that just a little bit of luck might have been the difference between increasing my overall score by 2 points. BTW ended up with a 11 on that bio section, I only ever got a 11 BS score before on AAMC11.

 

[jjesque]

When do people feel that a higher score yields diminishing returns? The difference between a 30 and a 35 is about moving up 15-20 percentile. The difference between a 35, 36, and 37 is about 1 percentile. After that it becomes even less.

I got a 35Q on my MCAT and I want to feel happy about it, but at the same time looking through the MSAR and seeing I am 1-2 points below the median for some of the top schools makes me uneasy. Will these 1-2 points matter THAT much?

It makes me especially mad because on my bio section on test day I had to guess compeletely on 2 questions, and make a 50/50 guess on 3 questions. Out of those 5 questions, I only got 1 right. I prepped my ass off for this test, and I'm sure the large majority of people had to guess on those same questions. Burns me up that just a little bit of luck might have been the difference between increasing my overall score by 2 points. BTW ended up with a 11 on that bio section, I only ever got a 11 BS score before on AAMC11.

I got into multiple top schools with a 36. I had a 12 in bio which is below average at the school I'm attending. Around the mid-30's I'm sure the MCAT becomes much less of a factor in admissions and will not hold you back one bit.

Past 40+ the MCAT becomes a significant, positive factor again. I know someone who had a 44 and he was admitted to top schools with an otherwise lackluster resume.

 

[Frazier]

I'm hitting boards prep hard this summer (after first year) and scoring 270s on NBMEs u jelly? It's so easy I don't even need second year.

Mah .....

 

[mechengmed]

I got into multiple top schools with a 36. I had a 12 in bio which is below average at the school I'm attending. Around the mid-30's I'm sure the MCAT becomes much less of a factor in admissions and will not hold you back one bit.

What does everyone consider a "top school"? The US News and World Report has a list were they rank the top schools up to about 100 or so. The main school I'm looking at is ranked around 50 on this list and is medical school associated with the public university I am at now. Their average MCAT is only a 30 and GPA is 3.65. Would this be what people consider a "top medical school" or are you guys referring to schools in the top 10 or 15 of a list like this?

 

[Ruhroh]

When most people say 'top school' they are referring to the schools near the top of the US News list of schools ranked on research. All those schools will have around 36 as the median MCAT., and 3.8-3.9 as the median GPA.

 

[mechengmed]

When most people say 'top school' they are referring to the schools near the top of the US News list of schools ranked on research. All those schools will have around 36 as the median MCAT., and 3.8-3.9 as the median GPA.

That's what I am asking. Where is the approximate cut off for "top schools" and what can still be considered at least a respectable school if it's not at the top of the list?

 

[PreMedOrDead]

That's what I am asking. Where is the approximate cut off for "top schools" and what can still be considered at least a respectable school if it's not at the top of the list?

The top 25 are generally the schools everyone you meet will recognize. They are often based on research, but some of the best schools get lost since they aren't research based -- Mayo for example.

But all US medical schools are top-notch institutions, and you will get a great medical education at each and every one of them.

Underachieving medical institutions don't last in the US, they're very regulated.

 

[jesse120]

That's what I am asking. Where is the approximate cut off for "top schools" and what can still be considered at least a respectable school if it's not at the top of the list?

The only schools I can imagine as not being "respectable" are the new medical schools that haven't graduated anyone yet. But even for those schools, they had to meet very strict guidelines before they were able to admit their first class, so I have no doubt that those schools will be (or already are) fine institutions.

In short, all US medical schools are respectable.

edit: As for cut offs for top schools, some people consider a school's MCAT average of 35+ to be top tier (roughly top 20-25) and is probably the most common opinion, for others it's strictly the top 10, and then for others still, top tier only includes Harvard, Hopkins, and Penn -- any other school mentioned in the same sentence as these three is offensive to them for some reason

 

[bluecabinet]

man

 

[SoulinNeed]

The only schools I can imagine as not being "respectable" are the new medical schools that haven't graduated anyone yet. But even for those schools, they had to meet very strict guidelines before they were able to admit their first class, so I have no doubt that those schools will be (or already are) fine institutions.

In short, all US medical schools are respectable.

edit: As for cut offs for top schools, some people consider a school's MCAT average of 35+ to be top tier (roughly top 20-25) and is probably the most common opinion, for others it's strictly the top 10, and then for others still, top tier only includes Harvard, Hopkins, and Penn -- any other school mentioned in the same sentence as these three is offensive to them for some reason

I don't believe the top 25 has an average of 35+ on the MCAT. Some may, but that's more top 10-15, right?

 

[Tummytroubles]

It's nearly impossible to get a good (30+) score on the MCAT without significant preparation. The MCAT is not like the GRE or GMAT; it is a content specific subject test as well as an examination of critical thinking skills. I'm sure many unqualified people take the MCAT, but I highly doubt they are able to perform on a level that would warrant acceptance into medical school.

Not true, depending on what you think is significant. It is not that significant amount of material and it is material we have all seen before. Learning something for the 2nd or even 3rd time ( If you had it in high school) is so much quicker than learning it for the first time. You need to study efficiently and what works for you.

In college I worked full time and took a crazy course load for a year and while I got mostly Bs that year, it taught me how to learn efficiently. This should be a skill everyone entering medical school should have. When people on SDN tell you to learn and not memorize, listen to them. Despite what people think, no one is smarter than anyone else. If they did better on the MCAT by studying less, they just have a few more studying tricks up their sleeve.

 

[MedPR]

Real world? 29+

SDN? 35+

I scored ~mid-30's on the MCAT.

My SAT score was ~1200 (old version).

I did not prep an ounce from the SAT; I prepped for the MCAT.

Conclude what you wish.

Pretty similar situation here. Prepped pretty hard for the MCAT while working and going to school; 33. Didn't prep for SAT (old version); 1190.

 

[BlueLabel]

If they did better on the MCAT by studying less, they just have a few more studying tricks up their sleeve.

Yes. Study smarter, not harder. Or better yet, both.

 

[MedPR]

Not true, depending on what you think is significant. It is not that significant amount of material and it is material we have all seen before. Learning something for the 2nd or even 3rd time ( If you had it in high school) is so much quicker than learning it for the first time. You need to study efficiently and what works for you.

In college I worked full time and took a crazy course load for a year and while I got mostly Bs that year, it taught me how to learn efficiently. This should be a skill everyone entering medical school should have. When people on SDN tell you to learn and not memorize, listen to them. Despite what people think, no one is smarter than anyone else. If they did better on the MCAT by studying less, they just have a few more studying tricks up their sleeve.

Disagree 100%. You and I are smarter than some people and there are other people who are smarter than both of us.

 

[Tummytroubles]

Disagree 100%. You and I are smarter than some people and there are other people who are smarter than both of us.

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

If I believed in either of these things, I doubt I would be here today applying to medical school.

 

[BlueLabel]

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

Not necessarily. Nothing about recognizing a non-genetic contribution to intelligence precludes the mindset that some people are smarter than others. Raj from India may be the god of Rubik's cubes and logic puzzles, but when you outpoint him by 30 on every OChem test and can explain concepts more clearly because of your verbal skills and diligent study habits, you're the "smarter" individual by cultural consensus.

The culturally accepted view of intelligence is a fusion of both natural ability and exposure. Don't sell yourself short. Certain people are more intelligent than others. Whether that's the result of the genes they inherited, the books Mom and Pop made them read and the instruments they made them learn how to play, or how hard they study, the relevant metric in lay terms is an aggregate.

 

[sliceofbread136]

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

If I believed in either of these things, I doubt I would be here today applying to medical school.

Science doesn't really support your theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

 

[Tummytroubles]

Not necessarily. Nothing about recognizing a non-genetic contribution to intelligence precludes the mindset that some people are smarter than others. Raj from India may be the god of Rubik's cubes and logic puzzles, but when you outpoint him by 30 on every OChem test and can explain concepts more clearly because of your verbal skills and diligent study habits, you're the "smarter" individual by cultural consensus.

The culturally accepted view of intelligence is a fusion of both natural ability and exposure. Don't sell yourself short. Certain people are more intelligent than others. Whether that's the result of the genes they inherited, the books Mom and Pop made them read and the instruments they made them learn how to play, or how hard they study, the relevant metric in lay terms is an aggregate.

While I agree with this a little this last part is not true at all. My parents never read to us as kids, the thought seems absurd considering I was reading at a higher level than my mother by age 8. I did not grow up in an intellectually nurturing environment yet 99% in verbal on high school standardized tests.


It's not in my genes (trust me), rather I credit my very strongly held belief there is no such thing as smart and dumb, only people that work hard and efficiently.

If I got a grade lower than someone else, I never made the excuse they were smarter than me. I just worked harder, looked to see what they did differently, and looked to see what I could do differently.

Crediting or blaming a difference in results to intelligence (inherent or not) is just an excuse and setting yourself up for failure.

I realize this is a very personal issue for me and nothing will probably change my mind but I just picture other pre-meds whose parents aren't doctors or didn't grow up in the most intellectual environment making excuses for themselves if they get a poor GPA or poor MCAT.

Everyone is capable of a 30 + and a good GPA no matter what your starting point is. There is no excuse.

 

[FattySlug]

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

If I believed in either of these things, I doubt I would be here today applying to medical school.

r u srs brah? Pick 2 random people of the same race/age with similar/normal diets and normal upbringing; most likely one is going to be taller than the other. That's genetics making a difference. If that is true for physical trait who to say it is not true for intelligence? Nature and nurture both play role in determining intelligence.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Once you reach around 33 luck starts to play a factor. Verbal has a particularly sharp curve. I got an 11, but could have easily got as high as 13/14 or as low as 10 (I was getting nearly all 12s in prep). A "good" score is 30+, particularly if you are in double digits in all sections. Someone that goes to MIT or scored high on the SAT should have no trouble breaking 30 with some effort. Just because you didn't do that great on the SAT or don't go to a top school doesn't mean you can't do very well on the test. My SAT was mediocre, but my MCAT was fairly solid.

 

[sliceofbread136]

While I agree with this a little this last part is not true at all. My parents never read to us as kids, the thought seems absurd considering I was reading at a higher level than my mother by age 8. I did not grow up in an intellectually nurturing environment yet 99% in verbal on high school standardized tests.


It's not in my genes (trust me), rather I credit my very strongly held belief there is no such thing as smart and dumb, only people that work hard and efficiently.

If I got a grade lower than someone else, I never made the excuse, they were smarter than me. I just worked harder, looked to see what they did differently, and looked to see what I could do differently.

Crediting or blaming a difference in results to intelligence (inherent or not) is just an excuse and setting yourself up for failure.

I realize this is a very personal issue for me and nothing will probably change my mind but I just picture other pre-meds whose parents aren't doctors or didn't grow up in the most intellectual environment making excuses for themselves if they get a poor GPA or poor MCAT.

Everyone is capable of a 30 + and a good GPA no matter what your starting point is. There is no excuse.

This may be a good view for you motivationally, but it really has no scientific basis. Atleast for me, when I look at people I see a very wide range of intelligences that can't be covered solely by study tricks.

 

[MedPR]

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

If I believed in either of these things, I doubt I would be here today applying to medical school.

Can't tell if you think you're more intelligent than everyone else or if you think everyone is equally intelligent.

Intelligence is more than an IQ and other test scores. Real world experiences (e.g nurture) affect intelligence just as genetics does.

 

[MedPR]

While I agree with this a little this last part is not true at all. My parents never read to us as kids, the thought seems absurd considering I was reading at a higher level than my mother by age 8. I did not grow up in an intellectually nurturing environment yet 99% in verbal on high school standardized tests.


It's not in my genes (trust me), rather I credit my very strongly held belief there is no such thing as smart and dumb, only people that work hard and efficiently.

If I got a grade lower than someone else, I never made the excuse they were smarter than me. I just worked harder, looked to see what they did differently, and looked to see what I could do differently.

Crediting or blaming a difference in results to intelligence (inherent or not) is just an excuse and setting yourself up for failure.

I realize this is a very personal issue for me and nothing will probably change my mind but I just picture other pre-meds whose parents aren't doctors or didn't grow up in the most intellectual environment making excuses for themselves if they get a poor GPA or poor MCAT.

Everyone is capable of a 30 + and a good GPA no matter what your starting point is. There is no excuse.

Not everyone is capable of a 30+ or a good GPA. There are such things as learning disabilities and mental ******ation.

Saying someone is more intelligent than you isn't an excuse for not doing as well as them. If a very intelligent person works equally as hard as a person of average intelligence, do you think they're going to get the same MCAT score? Doubtful. Both intelligence and hardwork are very valuable traits, but separately they cannot take you as far as they can if they are combined.

 

[Tummytroubles]

This is why I am so passionate about the intelligence debate.

In college I was paid to tutor rich peoples' kids for the SAT so to appease my conscience I volunteered to tutor low income kids.

All the adults in the lives of my kids that I was paid to tutor from wealthy families expected them to grow up to become doctors, lawyers, and scientists. So they set their sights high and held themselves up to a higher standard.

Most of the adults from the lives of my kids I volunteered with thought the kids were a great success if they graduated high school. Those kids were capable of so much more but people tell them because their parents weren't successful and they grew up in a "bad" neighborhood, less was expected of them. So they set their sights low and held themselves up to a lower standard.

Ugh, "intelligence" however you define it does not play that much of a role, I am evidence of that. I wish society and especially kids from less than stellar backgrounds didn't hold themselves to a lower standard.

 

[kasho11]

Ugh, "intelligence" however you define it does not play that much of a role

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

 

[Keepitclassy]

Driver's permit (computer based) - Fail
MCAT - 35

Legend.

 

[MedPR]

I'm hitting boards prep hard this summer (after first year) and scoring 270s on NBMEs u jelly? It's so easy I don't even need second year.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

Probably serious about 270+ after M1.

This is why I am so passionate about the intelligence debate.

In college I was paid to tutor rich peoples' kids for the SAT so to appease my conscience I volunteered to tutor low income kids.

All the adults in the lives of my kids that I was paid to tutor from wealthy families expected them to grow up to become doctors, lawyers, and scientists. So they set their sights high and held themselves up to a higher standard.

Most of the adults from the lives of my kids I volunteered with thought the kids were a great success if they graduated high school. Those kids were capable of so much more but people tell them because their parents weren't successful and they grew up in a "bad" neighborhood, less was expected of them. So they set their sights low and held themselves up to a lower standard.

Ugh, "intelligence" however you define it does not play that much of a role, I am evidence of that. I wish society and especially kids from less than stellar backgrounds didn't hold themselves to a lower standard.

You're assuming that you aren't genetically intelligent because your parents aren't doctors or whatever. Not all intelligent people become successful. Being poor or not having a great background does not automatically mean you are unintelligent.

You're basically taking a passive aggressive approach to "My parents were poor and didn't buy me fancy prep classes like you rich kids, but I still have a high GPA and MCAT score." Spare us.

 

[sliceofbread136]

This is why I am so passionate about the intelligence debate.

In college I was paid to tutor rich peoples' kids for the SAT so to appease my conscience I volunteered to tutor low income kids.

All the adults in the lives of my kids that I was paid to tutor from wealthy families expected them to grow up to become doctors, lawyers, and scientists. So they set their sights high and held themselves up to a higher standard.

Most of the adults from the lives of my kids I volunteered with thought the kids were a great success if they graduated high school. Those kids were capable of so much more but people tell them because their parents weren't successful and they grew up in a "bad" neighborhood, less was expected of them. So they set their sights low and held themselves up to a lower standard.

Ugh, "intelligence" however you define it does not play that much of a role, I am evidence of that. I wish society and especially kids from less than stellar backgrounds didn't hold themselves to a lower standard.

You can argue the nurture side of nature vs nurture, but to say genetics has no bearing at all on intelligence is pretty far fetched.

 

[Keepitclassy]

You have obviously never met me.

Thinking certain people are more intelligent than others goes with the whole genetics and intelligence.

If I believed in either of these things, I doubt I would be here today applying to medical school.

Says the person who wanted to retake a 33 MCAT

OT: The MCAT is a tough noogie for a vast majority of test-takers. Yes you'll have your n=1 who thinks the test is an absolute breeze (i.e. An absolutely brilliant acquaintance of mine literally walked in and scored a 38 the summer after sophomore year) But people like that have a solid background in the pre-req courses collateral with the material that's on the exam and somehow managed to retain it all as well.

I'd play it safe and study/prep adequately rather than walking around with your head high thinking you're the chosen one.

 

[Tummytroubles]

Says the person who wanted to retake a 33 MCAT

OT: The MCAT is a tough noogie for a vast majority of test-takers. Yes you'll have your n=1 who thinks the test is an absolute breeze (i.e. An absolutely brilliant acquaintance of mine literally walked in and scored a 38 the summer after sophomore year) But people like that have a solid background in the pre-req courses collateral with the material that's on the exam and somehow managed to retain it all as well.

I'd play it safe and study/prep adequately rather than walking around with your head high thinking you're the chosen one.

The MCAT, there are people who scored higher than me, I honeslty do not belive in intelligence so there is NO REASON why I shouldn't have a 42 ( highest I have heard of). That is why I want to study more and retake. I expect more from myself.

For the last part. I knew the comment about the SAT prep class would offend some considering the economic make up of med schools. That **** is so unfair. I really really wanted to take one in high school but instead I had to settle for a library copy of a prep book. So to me yeah I felt like I was selling out when I took that job. You can be offended but some of the kids I was paid to tutor went from 30% to the 90% because they're parents shelled out thousands for private tutoring.

Look, I have nothing against people from well off backgrounds. My boyfriend comes from a well off family but the truth is, low income kids have enough working against them. They don't need to be told by some snotty pre-med that they are less likely to succeed because of their genetic make up or the environment they grew up in.

 

[FattySlug]

The MCAT, there are people who scored higher than me, I honeslty do not belive in intelligence so there is NO REASON why I shouldn't have a 42 ( highest I have heard of). That is why I want to study more and retake. I expect more from myself.

For the last part. I knew the comment about the SAT prep class would offend some considering the economic make up of med schools. That **** is so unfair. I really really wanted to take one in high school but instead I had to settle for a library copy of a prep book. So to me yeah I felt like I was selling out when I took that job. You can be offended but some of the kids I was paid to tutor went from 30% to the 90% because they're parents shelled out thousands for private tutoring.

Look, I have nothing against people from well off backgrounds. My boyfriend comes from a well off family but the truth is, low income kids have enough working against them. They don't need to be told by some snotty pre-med that they are less likely to succeed because of their genetic make up or the environment they grew up in.

Nobody here said that kid in the ghetto will be unintelligent because of their genetic. Where did you even get this? The overall sentiment here is that some people were born smarter than others be it poor or rich. I have met dumb rich kids and dumb poor kids. They are both out there.

The fact that kids from working background/poor neighborhood are less likely to succeed is a cold and hard fact. Simple as that. Be it nature or nurture that is how it is. If anything I think telling those kids that they are at risks will motivate them since they know it is harder for them to make it. At least that's how I would react if somebody told me that.

If you think it is snotty to tell somebody the truth then well it's your problem.

 

[jesse120]

I don't believe the top 25 has an average of 35+ on the MCAT. Some may, but that's more top 10-15, right?

I just sort of threw out an arbitrary range; I didn't really know how many schools have that 35+ average. But looking at the current USNews research rankings for top ~30 and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Ex2MjlBTDE0bXFXNGFZczZqYTZKb2c&hl=en_US#gid=0

1. Harvard 35.7
2. Johns Hopkins 35.4
3. Penn 37.0
4. Stanford 34.8
5. UCSF 35.0
6. Washington U 37.2
7. Yale 35.4
8. Columbia 35.8
9. Duke 34.0
10. Chicago 36.0
10. Michigan 34.7
10. U Washington 31.0
13. UCLA 34.5
14. Vanderbilt 34.8
15. Pitt 35.0
16. Cornell 34.8
16. UCSD 33.4
18. Mount Sinai 34.8
18. Northwestern 34.4
20. UTSW 33.3
21. Baylor 33.1
21. Emory 34.0
21. UNC 32.2
24. Case Western 34.4
25. UVA 34.5
26. NYU 33.0
27. Mayo 33.0
27. Wisconsin 31.3
29. Iowa 32.0
29. Rochester 32.4

edit: just for fun, green is >=35, red is <35. and yes, I'm feeling Christmassy lol

 

[Tummytroubles]

I didn't mean to start an argument. I honestly do believe all those studies will be proven wrong one day when taking into account all variables.

Anyways, what I meant to say was (no matter what your background) that it is possible to get a 30+.

If you want to believe the studies that your potential is somewhat already determined, that is fine but it seems like a defeatist way to live life.

 

[AllDay24]

I just sort of threw out an arbitrary range; I didn't really know how many schools have that 35+ average. But looking at the current USNews research rankings for top ~30 and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Ex2MjlBTDE0bXFXNGFZczZqYTZKb2c&hl=en_US#gid=0

1. Harvard 35.7
2. Johns Hopkins 35.4
3. Penn 37.0
4. Stanford 34.8
5. UCSF 35.0
6. Washington U 37.2
7. Yale 35.4
8. Columbia 35.8
9. Duke 34.0
10. Chicago 36.0
10. Michigan 34.7
10. U Washington 31.0
13. UCLA 34.5
14. Vanderbilt 34.8
15. Pitt 35.0
16. Cornell 34.8
16. UCSD 33.4
18. Mount Sinai 34.8
18. Northwestern 34.4
20. UTSW 33.3
21. Baylor 33.1
21. Emory 34.0
21. UNC 32.2
24. Case Western 34.4
25. UVA 34.5
26. NYU 33.0
27. Mayo 33.0
27. Wisconsin 31.3
29. Iowa 32.0
29. Rochester 32.4

edit: just for fun, green is >=35, red is <35. and yes, I'm feeling Christmassy lol

I'm skeptical of this source. I have the new online MSAR and Stanford's and MSSM's median MCAT is a 36. NYU's is 35. I've been looking at MCAT scores in many books and some seem to underestimate while others overestimate...frustrating.

 

[SoulinNeed]

I'm skeptical of this source. I have the new online MSAR and Stanford's and MSSM's median MCAT is a 36. NYU's is 35. I've been looking at MCAT scores in many books and some seem to underestimate while others overestimate...frustrating.

That may be due to many things. I know that the MSAR and what schools report on their websites can be very different. That may be due to accepted vs. matriculation data, or due to the MSAR always rounding up. I've heard that the MSAR has Harvard at a 37, but for the same year, Harvard's website says 36.4, so it may be just a case of how they report the data.

 

[jesse120]

I'm skeptical of this source. I have the new online MSAR and Stanford's and MSSM's median MCAT is a 36. NYU's is 35. I've been looking at MCAT scores in many books and some seem to underestimate while others overestimate...frustrating.

Yeah, for whatever reason, different sources have different numbers. Whichever source I look at, I always figure the actual number is +/- 1. For example, although the current MSAR might say a 36 for MSSM, their website says:

"Q: How selective is Mount Sinai School of Medicine?
A: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, being a highly competitive institution, receives 5000 completed applications for the 140 positions in its entering class. Students accepted into the Class of 2011 had an average GPA of 3.7 and average MCAT of 35."


http://www.mssm.edu/education/medical-education/programs/md-program/admissions/faq

 

[AllDay24]

Which source should I use for deciding on schools to apply to? My score comes back next Tuesday, and I feel like I'm in the 34-36 range. Depending on the source, I may or may not have a chance at top tiers who have different MCAT scores in different sources...

 

[GrabSlamBoot]

Which source should I use for deciding on schools to apply to? My score comes back next Tuesday, and I feel like I'm in the 34-36 range. Depending on the source, I may or may not have a chance at top tiers who have different MCAT scores in different sources...

Msar... Or check out the spreadsheet floating around somewhere on the forums.

 

[shoenberg3]

I prepped more for MCAT than the SAT, yet ended up with 36 (12-13-11) and 2400 respectively. It is also true, however, that I feel generally less confident about science sections than verbal/math sections.

 

[gettheleadout]

I posted this in another thread recently, but based on 2012 USNews data the average MCAT for the top 20 schools is 34.98.

Also, regardless of what you believe, Tummytroubles, intelligence is variable between individuals and is based on both genetic/epigenetic and environmental influences. Early childhood stimulation such as reading to children is incredibly influential in brain and cognitive development and intellectual performance. Denying this is simply delusion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[sliceofbread136]

I posted this in another thread recently, but based on 2012 USNews data the average MCAT for the top 20 schools is 34.98.

Also, regardless of what you believe, Tummytroubles, intelligence is variable between individuals and is based on both genetic/epigenetic and environmental influences. Early childhood stimulation such as reading to children is incredibly influential in brain and cognitive development and intellectual performance. Denying this is simply delusion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

No man, the inner city kids! They disprove everything!

 

[SoulinNeed]

Which source should I use for deciding on schools to apply to? My score comes back next Tuesday, and I feel like I'm in the 34-36 range. Depending on the source, I may or may not have a chance at top tiers who have different MCAT scores in different sources...

I would go with the schools website (and NOT that list that was just posted, as that seems to be lower than even the schools' websites). I believe the websites report the actual data while MSAR may be rounding up. However, the difference between the websites and MSAR isn't so great to really make that big of a difference.