Who actually read the applications?

[jint83]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Just curious, who actually read the AMCAS application+secondaries during the interview selection process?
Does the admission committee read every essay?
I really wonder if they just throw out half the application by reading the MCAT score/GPA alone. And then after you are selected for interview then they actually read your essays. Does anyone if that's true?

 

[just one]

Do you think the dean will personally read 1500-10000 applications? Heck no, got to have an initial selection factor such as MCAT and GPA. If the average MCAT is a 31 and the GPA a 3.7, why would they waste their time on an application with a 22 and 3.3? Personally I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become. But there has to be something used for selection/ranking applicants. MCAT and GPA makes the most sense right now.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

NO information? really?

 

[jint83]

So who read the application
A group consist of two faculty and one medical student?
Anyone knows?

 

[just one]

The two schools I applied to have admission personnel along with a committee, also I was only referring to selection for interviews. I think they may skim the application before an interview for a red flag, but what I've been told about my schools is that the MCAT/GPA is the basis for an interview.

 

[ThaliaNox]

I know that at my school people hired by the admissions staff are the first ones through the application. Usually these people are second years and it is their job to "rate" the application. Applications with high enough ratings are then looked at again before deciding who to interview, I think.

I would have to think that your numbers are very important, though. It'd take something really catching the eye of the person going over your application to make up for low numbers. I'd also think it would be highly subjective, meaning that the person looking at your application would matter. For example, someone who also grew up in the inner city would understand challenges for someone from that area, or someone who does or did research on a similar topic may be more interested and impressed with your research, etc. All sad but true.

 

[phospho]

Personally I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become.

How can you say that though? Think about what you said for a second - put all the BS (the school should look at the whole person!!!) aside, and really think about this.

Would you really want someone with a 10 on their MCAT to treat your daughter for acute leukemia? What if they had a 20?

Med schools are giving you two ways to prove yourself. Your MCAT and your GPA. If someone can't prove themself one way or the other, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking they can't hack it. Actually, I hope they can't hack it. For the sake of my profession and future patients.

 

[just one]

How can you say that though? Think about what you said for a second - put all the BS (the school should look at the whole person!!!) aside, and really think about this.

Would you really want someone with a 10 on their MCAT to treat your daughter for acute leukemia? What if they had a 20?

Med schools are giving you two ways to prove yourself. Your MCAT and your GPA. If someone can't prove themself one way or the other, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking they can't hack it. Actually, I hope they can't hack it. For the sake of my profession and future patients.

More of speaking of the difference between an extremely high MCAT 34 and up compared to mid to high 20's. This is from speaking to several excellent physicians with lower than average MCAT scores.
And no, I wouldn't mind a board certified physician treating my son REGARDLESS of his/her MCAT score. Board scores may be a different story. Point I am trying to make is that this one test, which is taken before any real exposure to the profession, has no significant value on patient care. Physicians still are required to pass licensing exams (which you know) which are EXTREMELY important. Have you ever asked any of your physicians for MCAT scores? I doubt it.

 

[BerlinDude]

It's different at different schools. I know at Johns Hopkins a third of applications are tossed on the basis of MCAT/GPA scores alone. At Duke, every application is read and ranked by two different people to decide whether or not you are interview-worthy. Every school is unique...

 

[BerlinDude]

Do you think the dean will personally read 1500-10000 applications? Heck no, got to have an initial selection factor such as MCAT and GPA. If the average MCAT is a 31 and the GPA a 3.7, why would they waste their time on an application with a 22 and 3.3? Personally I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become. But there has to be something used for selection/ranking applicants. MCAT and GPA makes the most sense right now.

Methinks someone has a low MCAT score.

 

[just one]

Methinks someone has a low MCAT score.

I received a first round interview at one of my top choices. My MCAT score may be low for SDN standards, and you know what, I'm ok with it.

 

[phospho]

More of speaking of the difference between an extremely high MCAT 34 and up compared to mid to high 20's. This is from speaking to several excellent physicians with lower than average MCAT scores.
And no, I wouldn't mind a board certified physician treating my son REGARDLESS of his/her MCAT score. Board scores may be a different story. Point I am trying to make is that this one test, which is taken before any real exposure to the profession, has no significant value on patient care. Physicians still are required to pass licensing exams (which you know) which are EXTREMELY important. Have you ever asked any of your physicians for MCAT scores? I doubt it.

I received a first round interview at one of my top choices. My MCAT score may be low for SDN standards, and you know what, I'm ok with it.

There are papers that have come out that have correlated board scores with MCAT scores. It's not a "very" significant correlation, but it's most definitely a correlation.

But, let's at least get one thing straight: 34 is not even close to an "extremely high MCAT".

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then I wish you the best of luck. Only time and experience will set you straight. There is nothing that I can say that will change your mind.

 

[BerlinDude]

There are papers that have come out that have correlated board scores with MCAT scores. It's not a "very" significant correlation, but it's most definitely a correlation.

But, let's at least get one thing straight: 34 is not even close to an "extremely high MCAT".

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then I wish you the best of luck. Only time and experience will set you straight. There is nothing that I can say that will change your mind.

You speak the truth.

 

[just one]

There are papers that have come out that have correlated board scores with MCAT scores. It's not a "very" significant correlation, but it's most definitely a correlation.

But, let's at least get one thing straight: 34 is not even close to an "extremely high MCAT".

If you truly believe in what you're saying, then I wish you the best of luck. Only time and experience will set you straight. There is nothing that I can say that will change your mind.

Papers come out with contradictory findings all the time, I am using information gathered from physicians and medical students I have personally spoken with and ALL have given me the same information about this topic. The only time I have seen this correlation is on SDN. And I said 34 and up, some may have more accurate numbers but isn't 34 or 35 in 90th and up percentile? Even if it's not I'll state 37 and up if you like. I would like one person to state that as a patient they inquired about MCAT scores? I bet you would be hard pressed to find someone. And you are right, no one will convince me otherwise.

 

[trep14]

I disagree with the statement that GPA and MCAT provide no indication whatsoever of potential success as a doctor. However, I think that this statement could be true within reason. It is most certainly possible that someone with a 28 or 29 on the MCAT could make a better physician than someone with a 34+.

 

[Exalya]

Papers come out with contradictory findings all the time, I am using information gathered from physicians and medical students I have personally spoken with and ALL have given me the same information about this topic. The only time I have seen this correlation is on SDN. And I said 34 and up, some may have more accurate numbers but isn't 34 or 35 in 90th and up percentile? Even if it's not I'll state 37 and up if you like. I would like one person to state that as a patient they inquired about MCAT scores? I bet you would be hard pressed to find someone. And you are right, no one will convince me otherwise.

I agree with you here. I don't know what g = m1m2/r^2 has to do with deciding what chemo regiment to give a cancer patient. While it may have to do with some aspects of being a doctor, in my experience physicians who did not have a stellar MCAT have turned out to be stellar physicians... because what makes them good is not on the MCAT, and you can't test for it. Basic knowledge (MCAT greater than at least 25 or something) is great, but after that... you're dealing with intangibles.

 

[phospho]

Papers come out with contradictory findings all the time, I am using information gathered from physicians and medical students I have personally spoken with and ALL have given me the same information about this topic. The only time I have seen this correlation is on SDN. And I said 34 and up, some may have more accurate numbers but isn't 34 or 35 in 90th and up percentile? Even if it's not I'll state 37 and up if you like. I would like one person to state that as a patient they inquired about MCAT scores? I bet you would be hard pressed to find someone. And you are right, no one will convince me otherwise.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I believe - without a doubt - that a physician with a much lower MCAT score than another physician can be better than him/her as a doctor.

However, the chances of that happening? Probably less than the chances of it happening the other way around 😉

 

[just one]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I believe - without a doubt - that a physician with a much lower MCAT score than another physician can be better than him/her as a doctor.

However, the chances of that happening? Probably less than the chances of it happening the other way around 😉

That was my entire point, I never stated it was a higher chance of it happening. I know of several doctors that said they had the lowest MCAT score that could get them in, none have been sued or disciplinary action taken against them and all have excellent reputations. I made the statement regarding the entire scope of being a physician, not just about the correlation between MCAT/GPA and Board scores.

 

[Beren]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I believe - without a doubt - that a physician with a much lower MCAT score than another physician can be better than him/her as a doctor.

However, the chances of that happening? Probably less than the chances of it happening the other way around 😉

Also, at the time it is taken, it is the best way to standardize and measure people's motivation and learning ability for college-level material. It's not that we'll ever need to know double bond cleavage or atomic orbitals to succeed as clinicians.

It sure beats not having an MCAT and going by GPA only.

By the time doctors start practice, there are better measures of performance.

 

[just one]

Also, at the time it is taken, it is the best way to standardize and measure people's motivation and learning ability for college-level material. It's not that we'll ever need to know double bond cleavage or atomic orbitals to succeed as clinicians.

It sure beats not having an MCAT and going by GPA only.

By the time doctors start practice, there are better measures of performance.

I suggested that in my original post

 

[BerlinDude]

Papers come out with contradictory findings all the time, I am using information gathered from physicians and medical students I have personally spoken with and ALL have given me the same information about this topic. The only time I have seen this correlation is on SDN. And I said 34 and up, some may have more accurate numbers but isn't 34 or 35 in 90th and up percentile? Even if it's not I'll state 37 and up if you like. I would like one person to state that as a patient they inquired about MCAT scores? I bet you would be hard pressed to find someone. And you are right, no one will convince me otherwise.

If I was on an AdCom, I would consider the MCAT the single most important factor in an application. The sole purpose of a physician is to treat a patient's medical condition, and that requires a strong science background. GPA is so variable as to be useless - some people take easy classes or go to schools with a lot of grade inflation, and some people had difficult circumstances in college (maybe you had to work or you got very sick and that hurt your GPA). ECs are nonsense. Clinical experience is nonsense. Research experience is important if you want to go into research only.

I'll be like Socrates and answer your question with another question - when has a patient ever asked about his doctor's extracurriculars when in college, or GPA, or who he's shadowed, or what lab he worked in?

 

[phospho]

I know of several doctors that said they had the lowest MCAT score that could get them in, none have been sued or disciplinary action taken against them

Are these the/your standards for a "good physician"?

To be a good physician, all I would have to do is not get sued or have any actions taken against me? Do you really accept that?

How could ANYONE accept that?

 

[Beren]

I suggested that in my original post

Alright, let's abolish GPA and MCAT.

 

[just one]

Alright, let's abolish GPA and MCAT.

????.. I was stating that we were saying the same thing. I think you are reading into my posts.

 

[just one]

Are these the/your standards for a "good physician"?

To be a good physician, all I would have to do is not get sued or have any actions taken against me? Do you really accept that?

How could ANYONE accept that?

How do you rate physicians? Is there a ranking list, I would like to see one. I know of a surgeon locally who had graduated towards top of class, whom recently lost his license for too many careless mistakes, lawsuits, and a VERY preventable death. I could care less what his MCAT was.
In your quote you left off that I said have excellent reputations. How else is a patient supposed to pick a physician?

 

[JJMrK]

There has to be some basis for comparison. GPA speaks to your ability to work hard, while the MCAT tests your ability to study hard and take a tough test. What would you suggest instead?

 

[just one]

Again I have stated several times that MCAT GPA should be used for admittance, my point is that alone does not make a good doctor.

People, please read my entire posts.

 

[trep14]

If I was on an AdCom, I would consider the MCAT the single most important factor in an application. The sole purpose of a physician is to treat a patient's medical condition, and that requires a strong science background. GPA is so variable as to be useless - some people take easy classes or go to schools with a lot of grade inflation, and some people had difficult circumstances in college (maybe you had to work or you got very sick and that hurt your GPA). ECs are nonsense. Clinical experience is nonsense. Research experience is important if you want to go into research only.

I'll be like Socrates and answer your question with another question - when has a patient ever asked about his doctor's extracurriculars when in college, or GPA, or who he's shadowed, or what lab he worked in?

Methinks someone has a high MCAT score.

 

[Beren]

Again I have stated several times that MCAT GPA should be used for admittance, my point is that alone does not make a good doctor.

People, please read my entire posts.

MCAT and GPA are the best predictors we have for guessing who will learn medical school material effectively - one quality of a good doctor.

 

[just one]

MCAT and GPA are the best predictors we have for guessing who will learn medical school material effectively - one quality of a good doctor.

BINGO! ONE quality.

 

[Laryngophed]

As much as I should argue against GPA or MCAT alone as a determinant for admission, I can't do it. GPA and MCAT aren't good indicators of who will be a quality physician. And thankfully, most med schools don't use them as such. They are used to predict who will successfully make it through med school. And I'm guessing most AdComs will say nothing more. There is much more to being a good physician that has nothing to do with school. GPA and MCAT are inadequate when it comes to measuring those other things, so ECs and interviews are used to help assess those. GPA and MCAT are not the be all, end all, but they are important.

*Will someone take this post back to me when I graduated HS and staple it to my forehead?*

 

[vballninnie]

If MCAT and GPA are the main assessments for the potential quality of doctor, then what about all the 25-27 MCAT and 3.3-3.5 GPA students in get into D.O. schools? Are they therefore pre-determined to be bad doctors? I don't think so.

I think we should get back to OP discussion.

 

[physicsguy]

I agree with you here. I don't know what g = m1m2/r^2 has to do with deciding what chemo regiment to give a cancer patient. While it may have to do with some aspects of being a doctor, in my experience physicians who did not have a stellar MCAT have turned out to be stellar physicians... because what makes them good is not on the MCAT, and you can't test for it. Basic knowledge (MCAT greater than at least 25 or something) is great, but after that... you're dealing with intangibles.

What? You never heard about the new cancer treatment that relies on a non-abelian gauge theory for quantum gravity to extract energy from vacuum fluctuations?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously though, in regards to the OP: the other day I was reading Albany's admissions page It said that they don't have any sort of computerized filter, and that they read every application they receive by hand. I'm pretty new to all of this, so I don't know how uncommon this is. Has anyone heard of other schools with similar policies?

 

[dingyibvs]

That was my entire point, I never stated it was a higher chance of it happening. I know of several doctors that said they had the lowest MCAT score that could get them in, none have been sued or disciplinary action taken against them and all have excellent reputations. I made the statement regarding the entire scope of being a physician, not just about the correlation between MCAT/GPA and Board scores.

Stop it. We don't care about your personal experiences. They're anecdotal evidence. As a person who is pursuing a career based on science, you should just stop using those experiences as basis for anything.

Statistically, higher GPA/MCAT tend to predict better performance in med school, and better performance in med school tend to predict better performance as physicians.

Note the key word: Tend. Nobody has said that they're the be-all-end-all predictors for future success as physicians. YOU were the one who said, and I quote, "I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become." You suggested that those numbers were chosen simply because there has to be SOMETHING to narrow down the number of appplicants. Your statement seems to say that MCAT/GPA were chosen randomly, and we're simply suggesting that they do, in fact, predict future success as well as college experiences can predict(along with EC's, LOR's, and interviews).

As for the OP's question, it's different at different schools. Some schools don't read LORs before selecting people for interviews, some schools don't read the essays(heck, Vandy doesn't even send you a secondary until they offer you an interview), and some schools look at everything thoroughly. It depends on the school.

 

[vman51]

Stop it. We don't care about your personal experiences. They're anecdotal evidence. As a person who is pursuing a career based on science, you should just stop using those experiences as basis for anything.

Statistically, higher GPA/MCAT tend to predict better performance in med school, and better performance in med school tend to predict better performance as physicians.

Note the key word: Tend. Nobody has said that they're the be-all-end-all predictors for future success as physicians. YOU were the one who said, and I quote, "I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become." You suggested that those numbers were chosen simply because there has to be SOMETHING to narrow down the number of appplicants. Your statement seems to say that MCAT/GPA were chosen randomly, and we're simply suggesting that they do, in fact, predict future success as well as college experiences can predict(along with EC's, LOR's, and interviews).

As for the OP's question, it's different at different schools. Some schools don't read LORs before selecting people for interviews, some schools don't read the essays(heck, Vandy doesn't even send you a secondary until they offer you an interview), and some schools look at everything thoroughly. It depends on the school.

well, I think you just killed that little debate and answered the OP's question exactly how I would..you get a 👍

hell, you get one more 👍

 

[vballninnie]

Stop it. We don't care about your personal experiences. They're anecdotal evidence. As a person who is pursuing a career based on science, you should just stop using those experiences as basis for anything.

Statistically, higher GPA/MCAT tend to predict better performance in med school, and better performance in med school tend to predict better performance as physicians.

Note the key word: Tend. Nobody has said that they're the be-all-end-all predictors for future success as physicians. YOU were the one who said, and I quote, "I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become." You suggested that those numbers were chosen simply because there has to be SOMETHING to narrow down the number of appplicants. Your statement seems to say that MCAT/GPA were chosen randomly, and we're simply suggesting that they do, in fact, predict future success as well as college experiences can predict(along with EC's, LOR's, and interviews).

As for the OP's question, it's different at different schools. Some schools don't read LORs before selecting people for interviews, some schools don't read the essays(heck, Vandy doesn't even send you a secondary until they offer you an interview), and some schools look at everything thoroughly. It depends on the school.

I like this. In all seriousness, I want to get back to the OP discussion. Is anyone even reading my personal statement and secondary essays? My LOR?

Which schools screen the heaviest (post-secondary) and which schools give an application a thorough read?

 

[MegaProjectile]

Stop it. We don't care about your personal experiences. They're anecdotal evidence. As a person who is pursuing a career based on science, you should just stop using those experiences as basis for anything.

Statistically, higher GPA/MCAT tend to predict better performance in med school, and better performance in med school tend to predict better performance as physicians.

Note the key word: Tend. Nobody has said that they're the be-all-end-all predictors for future success as physicians. YOU were the one who said, and I quote, "I think these stats provide no information about the quality of physician you can become." You suggested that those numbers were chosen simply because there has to be SOMETHING to narrow down the number of appplicants. Your statement seems to say that MCAT/GPA were chosen randomly, and we're simply suggesting that they do, in fact, predict future success as well as college experiences can predict(along with EC's, LOR's, and interviews).

As for the OP's question, it's different at different schools. Some schools don't read LORs before selecting people for interviews, some schools don't read the essays(heck, Vandy doesn't even send you a secondary until they offer you an interview), and some schools look at everything thoroughly. It depends on the school.

Awesome post. Good job.

 

[redsquareblack]

34 is not even close to an "extremely high MCAT".

A minor quibble, but 34 is, in fact, a pretty high score (though, I concede, perhaps not an extremely high score). When the average 2008 matriculant score is a 30.9, and the SD is anywhere from 2.0 to 2.3, with a score of 34, that would put one in at least the low to middle top decile. So long as the scores are relatively evenly distributed across sections, that's pretty decent, IMHO.

 

[Laryngophed]

For the April 7, 2007 MCAT, 34 = 90.6-93%ile. That's just under two SDs from the mean. That's not astronomical but it's still pretty high.

To the OPs question, I'm guessing that schools that screen pre-secondary have office staff that read over AMCAS and send emails accordingly. It'd be a pretty simple algorithm for most. IFF both scores are above this, place into this pile. If below, in that pile. If one or the other is above/below, send to this person (an AdCom member) for review.

Post secondary, I'm sure your file gets assigned to one or two AdCom members for review as to whether you should be passed on to the whole AdCom for review to be considered for an interview.

But I'm just guessing here.

 

[womp]

A minor quibble, but 34 is, in fact, a pretty high score (though, I concede, perhaps not an extremely high score). When the average 2008 matriculant score is a 30.9, and the SD is anywhere from 2.0 to 2.3, with a score of 34, that would put one in at least the low to middle top decile. So long as the scores are relatively evenly distributed across sections, that's pretty decent, IMHO.

The SD for composite MCAT scores is 6.4, not 2 something. 34 is a good score, not a "extremely high score." More than 7000 applicants this year will have at least a 34 when they apply. That 7000 can easily fill half the classes of the top 100 medical schools in the country, with the top 20 generally having medians above 35. Mid-tiered schools like SUNY Downstate, Cincinnati, etc have accepted medians around 34 according to the MSAR.

34, however, is an extremely high score at med schools like the University of Oklahoma, to which "just one" is applying. I think a 34 is actually in the top ten percent at OU. The catch is that they don't take very many OOS applicants.

A 39 would be an extremely high score (99th percentile), less than 700 applicants would have that score or higher.

 

[LizzyM]

Back to the original question... every school is different. At my school we have a system with about 30 team members and team capitans Team members read about 10 applications per week, make comments, give a numeric score and pass it along to people you might call team captians. The capitans read about 50 applications per week, recommend interview or no interview and pass their recommendations to the Dean. Applications with very low stats are read only by the dean who determines if there is something out of the ordinary about the applicant that merits passing the application along for the usual review. (not sure what this might be but perhaps something like a 0.0 gpa one semester because of some tragedy and then a bounce back but a terrible gpa because of the bad situation)

Team members include M4 medical students and faculty members in both basic sciences (as well as social sciences and humanities as they relate to medicine), and clinical specialties. Team captains are senior faculty members from basic sciences and clinical specialties.

So, at least one person is expected to have read every word, another will read selectively to confirm anything on which the decision hinges and the dean makes final decisions.

A facutly member who interviews you may also be given the opportunity to read everything in your file before the interview. At my school, every member of the team has the option of reading anything in your file before making a final decision regarding their opinion as to whether you should or shouldn't be admitted. The sum of those opinions is considered by an executive committee that makes the final decisions.

Can you see why this takes so long?

 

[jint83]

Thanks a lot LizzyM.
So where does the 10XGPA+MCAT score fit into the picture? Do people have higher scores automatically get an interview or an easy pass by the captain?

 

[LizzyM]

Our teams don't use the LizzyM score. That is soley for the use of applicants to target applications to schools where they have a decent shot, based on numbers, of getting some interviews.

I came up with this formula after seeing people on SDN telling us that they applied to 20 schools all over the country, & got no interviews.... turns out these were applicants with 3.59/28 and the 20 schools were the Top 20. I just thought that there must be a more rational way to target one's applications.

BTW, someone PM'ed me asking about the reading of LORs. Those are part of the file that is reviewed by team members. (team = adcom).

 

[jint83]

I see, that's why high MCAT doesn't necessarily bring you any advantage. I actually do think that the adcom might have a target region MCAT/GAP in mind.

If I apply very late in the cycle, will my app be reviewed earlier in the queue than other ppl due to high MCAT?

 

[LizzyM]

I see, that's why high MCAT doesn't necessarily bring you any advantage. I actually do think that the adcom might have a target region MCAT/GAP in mind.

If I apply very late in the cycle, will my app be reviewed earlier in the queue than other ppl due to high MCAT?

When adcom members review your application they see your gpa and MCAT. They see the gpa cut at least 12 different ways as well as your entire transcript and every subscore of every MCAT you've ever taken. Adcom members certainly evaluate those numbers in addition to all the other information in the file (AMCAS, supplemental, LORs).

I think that adcom members know the average for current matriculants and they may have a minimum floor below which they fear for a student's ability to manage the material. That gets factored in along with whatever else the adcom values (which varies by school and may include undergrad institution, volunteer service, work experience/non-trad, research, clinical exposure, interest in primary care/rural medicine, etc).

It is easier now than it used to be to cherry pick the high scores because we can search electronically. Your application may move to the top of the stack if you have a high MCAT but at another school it may be strictly in the order in which they are received. Adcoms may be a lot like hospitals. We're all doing the same thing but each place has its own unique manual of operations.

 

[MossPoh]

Methinks someone has a low MCAT score.

Methinks that a lot of analysis has gone into this at my school and there was been a nearly insignificant difference in success between the students in the 25-27 range and everyone else (including the 33+ area). I forget what they said the actual significance was, but it was pretty friggin close to 0.

So, no statistically there isn't much correlation between the two. If you put two students who took the exact same classes all the way through and had a huge difference in GPA and MCAT then the person with the higher one MIGHT do better. It still isn't a guarantee. Being a state school, we have a lot of people that had nearly identical classes. I have a friend that destroyed another person in every single class. As in, not even close. He had a 4.0 and walked through undergrad. The kid he routinely beat (they are friends) is now doing significantly better in coursework. Once you hit med school there are far too many factors to say someone is better than another person. It is also ignorant to think that one's success in classes such as histology and gross anatomy correlate with one's proficiency as a physician.

 

[ezsanche]

Thanks a lot LizzyM.
So where does the 10XGPA+MCAT score fit into the picture? Do people have higher scores automatically get an interview or an easy pass by the captain?

I have a lizzy score of 75.6. Is that good? I know that the highest score one can receive is a a 85.

 

[Laryngophed]

Methinks that a lot of analysis has gone into this at my school and there was been a nearly insignificant difference in success between the students in the 25-27 range and everyone else (including the 33+ area). I forget what they said the actual significance was, but it was pretty friggin close to 0.

So, no statistically there isn't much correlation between the two. If you put two students who took the exact same classes all the way through and had a huge difference in GPA and MCAT then the person with the higher one MIGHT do better. It still isn't a guarantee. Being a state school, we have a lot of people that had nearly identical classes. I have a friend that destroyed another person in every single class. As in, not even close. He had a 4.0 and walked through undergrad. The kid he routinely beat (they are friends) is now doing significantly better in coursework. Once you hit med school there are far too many factors to say someone is better than another person. It is also ignorant to think that one's success in classes such as histology and gross anatomy correlate with one's proficiency as a physician.

Methinks you are confusing a reported P value and correlation. A correlation closer to zero means the relationship between two variables is weak. A P value close to zero (typically less than 0.05) indicates statistical significance.

 

[ezsanche]

nvm

 

[BerlinDude]

Methinks that a lot of analysis has gone into this at my school and there was been a nearly insignificant difference in success between the students in the 25-27 range and everyone else (including the 33+ area). I forget what they said the actual significance was, but it was pretty friggin close to 0.

So, no statistically there isn't much correlation between the two. If you put two students who took the exact same classes all the way through and had a huge difference in GPA and MCAT then the person with the higher one MIGHT do better. It still isn't a guarantee. Being a state school, we have a lot of people that had nearly identical classes. I have a friend that destroyed another person in every single class. As in, not even close. He had a 4.0 and walked through undergrad. The kid he routinely beat (they are friends) is now doing significantly better in coursework. Once you hit med school there are far too many factors to say someone is better than another person. It is also ignorant to think that one's success in classes such as histology and gross anatomy correlate with one's proficiency as a physician.

Haha - your post makes no sense!

And correlation between the two? The two what? MCAT and GPA? MCAT and USMLE scores? What are you talking about? You need to have some apple pie pronto, cause you are ridiculous.