Why have med school admissions become so much more selective in just a span of 5-10 years?

[LuluLovesMe]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Schools that used to have 5% acceptance rates now have 1-2% acceptance rates. Average stats for matriculated students are constantly increasing.

Why are more people applying to med schools? Did the '08 recession play any part?

Do you foresee this trend continuing or reversing?

 

[Goro]

Usually when the economy tanks, med school admissions go up. Even though the economy has improved a lot since 2008, a lot of people still feel insecure.

Why are more people applying to med schools? Did the '08 recession play any part?

No sign of it slacking off anytime soon.
Do you foresee this trend continuing or reversing?

 

[TeamBorealis]

Schools that used to have 5% acceptance rates now have 1-2% acceptance rates. Average stats for matriculated students are constantly increasing.

Why are more people applying to med schools? Did the '08 recession play any part?

Do you foresee this trend continuing or reversing?

Based on acceptance rate alone you can't deduce that it's becoming more competitive.

I think that the average GPA/MCAT has only gone up a little bit, indicating that while MORE people are applying, that doesn't mean there are generally more qualified applicants than before.

 

[WingedOx]

Based on acceptance rate alone you can't deduce that it's becoming more competitive.

I think that the average GPA/MCAT has only gone up a little bit, indicating that while MORE people are applying, that doesn't mean there are generally more qualified applicants than before.

Depends on the school. There are a few like Ohio State that have REALLY gone up since I applied.

But it's not just the last 5-10 years, it's been a consistent increase for longer than that. People with my stats who were seniors when I was a freshman were getting acceptances to schools that wouldn't even give me a secondary by the time I applied. This was almost 8 years ago.

The continuing rise in the median step 1 score should scare everyone even more. it was 218 when I took it 6 years ago. By the time you guys take it, it'll be in the 230s.

 

[Lysinee]

Depends on the school. There are a few like Ohio State that have REALLY gone up since I applied.

But it's not just the last 5-10 years, it's been a consistent increase for longer than that. People with my stats who were seniors when I was a freshman were getting acceptances to schools that wouldn't even give me a secondary by the time I applied. This was almost 8 years ago.

The continuing rise in the median step 1 score should scare everyone even more. it was 218 when I took it 6 years ago. By the time you guys take it, it'll be in the 230s.

The step 1 average is already 230. I anticipate that the minimum passing score will be raised to 200 to keep up with the higher average.

 

[efle]

Good thing that new MCAT is coming out to **** everything up for a good number of people!

But really, I wonder if next cycle or two will see any change in the trend from people who decided to add a gap year and avoid being in the first batch of MCAT 2015 takers

 

[LizzyM]

Good thing that new MCAT is coming out to **** everything up for a good number of people!

But really, I wonder if next cycle or two will see any change in the trend from people who decided to add a gap year and avoid being in the first batch of MCAT 2015 takers

I suspect that 2015 some would-be applicants will sit out the cycle because they don't want to take the new MCAT. That will be made up by many people applying before their old MCAT expires.

In 2016 we'll have everyone who would have applied in 2016 anyway plus all the peeps who didn't take the MCAT in 2015 because it was too new.

 

[TeamBorealis]

I suspect that 2015 some would-be applicants will sit out the cycle because they don't want to take the new MCAT. That will be made up by many people applying before their old MCAT expires.

In 2016 we'll have everyone who would have applied in 2016 anyway plus all the peeps who didn't take the MCAT in 2015 because it was too new.

How do you think this will affect the cycle?

I'm stuck between wondering that out of fear, more under-qualified applicants who apply will get in, or more qualified applicants might not get in because the old MCAT is preferred. In anyway, I think this will fudge a lot of historical stats.

 

[efle]

How do you think this will affect the cycle?

I'm stuck between wondering that out of fear, more under-qualified applicants who apply will get in, or more qualified applicants might not get in because the old MCAT is preferred. In anyway, I think this will fudge a lot of historical stats.

Why does everyone think old MCAT scores confer an advantage? Maybe adcoms won't quite know how to weigh the new subsection scores or their predictive values, but they do understand percentiles

 

[Narmerguy]

Why does everyone think old MCAT scores confer an advantage? Maybe adcoms won't quite know how to weigh the new subsection scores or their predictive values, but they do understand percentiles

Old MCAT confers an advantage for people who have time/money to prepare a lot. The new MCAT reduces some of those benefits because it's not yet clear how to prepare, so who comes out on top may not be the usual cohort of people pounding away at review books/classes. I include myself in this, I studied quite hard from review materials which obviously helped my score. I suspect many on SDN are similar (just look at the popularity of SN2ed's study schedule) so this looks like a dicey situation from their individual perspective, even if it changes nothing in aggregate.

 

[Shams al Deen]

Old MCAT confers an advantage for people who have time/money to prepare a lot. The new MCAT reduces some of those benefits because it's not yet clear how to prepare, so who comes out on top may not be the usual cohort of people pounding away at review books/classes. I include myself in this, I studied quite hard from review materials which obviously helped my score. I suspect many on SDN are similar (just look at the popularity of SN2ed's study schedule) so this looks like a dicey situation from their individual perspective, even if it changes nothing in aggregate.

But at the same time, the added biochemistry, psychology, and sociology will hardly benefit those who don't have a lot of time and money to throw at this new MCAT. I'd argue that the added material would actually benefit those with more time on their hands. However I do agree that the new test could definitely shake things up and make the top 3 percentile a different group of people than the old test's top 3 percentile. I just don't think it will necessarily benefit the people with less time/money. If anything, the test just got more 'studyable'.

 

[efle]

Old MCAT confers an advantage for people who have time/money to prepare a lot. The new MCAT reduces some of those benefits because it's not yet clear how to prepare, so who comes out on top may not be the usual cohort of people pounding away at review books/classes. I include myself in this, I studied quite hard from review materials which obviously helped my score. I suspect many on SDN are similar (just look at the popularity of SN2ed's study schedule) so this looks like a dicey situation from their individual perspective, even if it changes nothing in aggregate.

But at the same time, the added biochemistry, psychology, and sociology will hardly benefit those who don't have a lot of time and money to throw at this new MCAT. I'd argue that the added material would actually benefit those with more time on their hands. However I do agree that the new test could definitely shake things up and make the top 3 percentile a different group of people than the old test's top 3 percentile. I just don't think it will necessarily benefit the people with less time/money. If anything, the test just got more 'studyable'.

Good points both of you, I think you're right that pouring hours into studying will become even more necessary, but I think that a lot of people are worried because you'll have to synthesize your own study materials for the new sections. I think people like narmer and myself much preferred knowing exactly what to master.

What do you guys think will be the reaction to the new sections? Will high scores in a socio/psych section also predict strong step1? I feel like that section may suffer the fate of the writing portion and end up mattering a lot less to adcoms than verbal/PS/BS + biochem

 

[Narmerguy]

But at the same time, the added biochemistry, psychology, and sociology will hardly benefit those who don't have a lot of time and money to throw at this new MCAT. I'd argue that the added material would actually benefit those with more time on their hands. However I do agree that the new test could definitely shake things up and make the top 3 percentile a different group of people than the old test's top 3 percentile. I just don't think it will necessarily benefit the people with less time/money. If anything, the test just got more 'studyable'.

I look at it this way: If I (Person A) previously had 100 hours to study for the exam, those 100 hours just became less efficient. The diminishing returns for those 100 hours start decreasing earlier, because a lot of my energy will be shooting in the dark. However, if I (Person B) am only studying 30 hours anyway, making more of the exam "harder" to study for won't affect me as much as I wasn't studying that much to begin with. Basically this change will increase the variance, which for people at the top hurts most because they were already at the top--increasing variance mostly serves to jumble them down, whereas people below them can get lucky and go up.

Good points both of you, I think you're right that pouring hours into studying will become even more necessary, but I think that a lot of people are worried because you'll have to synthesize your own study materials for the new sections. I think people like narmer and myself much preferred knowing exactly what to master.

What do you guys think will be the reaction to the new sections? Will high scores in a socio/psych section also predict strong step1? I feel like that section may suffer the fate of the writing portion and end up mattering a lot less to adcoms than verbal/PS/BS + biochem

Studying will become extra important but people don't know what to study and they can only study so much (not to mention there's more material to study). Willpower is finite. People who depended on studying to do well will feel the pressure the most. I agree with you, knowing what to master allowed me to basically focus 100% of my energy on relevant material.

Ooh, your followup questions are good ones. I think those sections will definitely matter less initially because people won't know what to do with it, but that it'll be taken more seriously than writing (at least eventually). However, I bet it will not predict Step 1 scores as well because Step1 performance is so tightly bound by comprehension of A) biological material B) Material that has clear study resources. This probably more resembles the bio/phys sections. A lot of people will do poorly on the socio/psych stuff because they had neither a sufficient coursework background nor a reliable resource to test prep with. What do you think?

 

[efle]

I look at it this way: If I (Person A) previously had 100 hours to study for the exam, those 100 hours just became less efficient. The diminishing returns for those 100 hours start decreasing earlier, because a lot of my energy will be shooting in the dark. However, if I (Person B) am only studying 30 hours anyway, making more of the exam "harder" to study for won't affect me as much as I wasn't studying that much to begin with. Basically this change will increase the variance, which for people at the top hurts most because they were already at the top--increasing variance mostly serves to jumble them down, whereas people below them can get lucky and go up.

Studying will become extra important but people don't know what to study and they can only study so much (not to mention there's more material to study). Willpower is finite. People who depended on studying to do well will feel the pressure the most. I agree with you, knowing what to master allowed me to basically focus 100% of my energy on relevant material.

Ooh, your followup questions are good ones. I think those sections will definitely matter less initially because people won't know what to do with it, but that it'll be taken more seriously than writing (at least eventually). However, I bet it will not predict Step 1 scores as well because Step1 performance is so tightly bound by comprehension of A) biological material B) Material that has clear study resources. This probably more resembles the bio/phys sections. A lot of people will do poorly on the socio/psych stuff because they had neither a sufficient coursework background nor a reliable resource to test prep with. What do you think?

It certainly will be interesting to see what the 66% retake CI turns out to be for the first round of the new test. I bet there will be a lot more stories of people doing far better the second time around from learning a lot about what/how to study that the single practice test and guesswork Kaplan/Princeton prep books couldn't totally communicate.

RE the bold - really scary thought, it makes me worried for my room mates taking the new one next year. WUSTL doesn't even have a sociology major or department (though one is coming soon...coincidence?) and the 300-level social psych class we do have in no way, shape or form rivaled the other prereqs in breadth and depth of material. People will probably just end up picking some common Intro Socio textbooks and reading them cover to cover with lots of notes, but that can't help much as the MCAT is only in small part a memorization/identification test.

I think my experience in the old prereqs vs psych & socio classes makes me very biased to agree with you, that there is no way the latter can test comprehension and reasoning in the same way. Unless it ends up being a Verbal Part 2 with Socio/Psych flavoring I don't see how it could be too informative. What motivated this addition, anyways? The biochem makes sense, but were medical schools complaining that their incoming students didn't know enough about the consequences of stereotypes and groupthink? Should we expect an MCAT 2025 now featuring a section on Anthropological Methods?

 

[soccerman93]

Probably doesn't help that law school graduate employment prospects seem to have gone down the drain. More smart kids (read:solid test takers) that would have previously considered law may feel more of a pull towards medicine.

 

[TeamBorealis]

RE the bold - really scary thought, it makes me worried for my room mates taking the new one next year. WUSTL doesn't even have a sociology major or department (though one is coming soon...coincidence?) and the 300-level social psych class we do have in no way, shape or form rivaled the other prereqs in breadth and depth of material.

I've looked over the content sheets for the 2015 MCAT...and they pretty much coincide with an entry level Psych/Socio class. Now, this stuff is almost akin to verbal, teaching yourself Psych/Socio is easy, even fun! Pick up a textbook in each subject and read through the corresponding material.

The only thing I feel bad for the test takers for is that there are hardly any passages to practice with. I hear Kaplan and PR only have stand-alones at this point.

 

[aegistitan]

Schools that used to have 5% acceptance rates now have 1-2% acceptance rates. Average stats for matriculated students are constantly increasing.

Why are more people applying to med schools? Did the '08 recession play any part?

Do you foresee this trend continuing or reversing?

I'd say it's because medicine is one of the few career paths left where you can go through a certain span of education and still get guaranteed a 200k income (hospitalist gig in the south). For a lot of my friends this is the mentality. With rising college tuition it's going to be much harder to finance your children(s) education especially if you have a larger family, medicine is one of the few ways left to guarantee 200k.

 

[WhiteMaleSyndrome]

New MCAT = more money for study material. I hope that their intention for this revision is that people actually won't have time/money to study for every detail that the new material covers. This could be a way to further analyze one's deductive/inductive reasoning beyond a VR section alone. Of course their will be some discrete questions for recalling cold, hard facts, but then again, trying to compartmentalize a patient's psycho-/social type can be irresponsible.

I hope that maybe I'm on to something here, because the current system is a little broken. I couldn't afford any supplemental study material outside of taking classes, and ended up with 12P/7V/12P. The only advise I've received to study for VR is to spend money on Kaplan or the like. I've had colleagues score equivalent to mine, but with low science scores and an overwhelming VR score to offset it. Guess what.... super heavy Kaplan buyers. There's even a myth out there that someone scored a 15 without even reading the passages. (Look at Official August 21, 2014 MCAT Forum).

So back to the main topic, I think admissions are becoming increasingly competitive because applicants are figuring out the MCAT format. I'm not saying that applicants with higher scores aren't intelligent people, but it's becoming more common to receive mid 30s. Meanwhile, aren't GPAs remaining fairly constant?

Or maybe I'm entirely wrong, too cynical, and conspiracy doesn't suit me.

 

[Narmerguy]

It certainly will be interesting to see what the 66% retake CI turns out to be for the first round of the new test. I bet there will be a lot more stories of people doing far better the second time around from learning a lot about what/how to study that the single practice test and guesswork Kaplan/Princeton prep books couldn't totally communicate.

RE the bold - really scary thought, it makes me worried for my room mates taking the new one next year. WUSTL doesn't even have a sociology major or department (though one is coming soon...coincidence?) and the 300-level social psych class we do have in no way, shape or form rivaled the other prereqs in breadth and depth of material. People will probably just end up picking some common Intro Socio textbooks and reading them cover to cover with lots of notes, but that can't help much as the MCAT is only in small part a memorization/identification test.

I think my experience in the old prereqs vs psych & socio classes makes me very biased to agree with you, that there is no way the latter can test comprehension and reasoning in the same way. Unless it ends up being a Verbal Part 2 with Socio/Psych flavoring I don't see how it could be too informative. What motivated this addition, anyways? The biochem makes sense, but were medical schools complaining that their incoming students didn't know enough about the consequences of stereotypes and groupthink? Should we expect an MCAT 2025 now featuring a section on Anthropological Methods?

Haha, I hope it is not a verbal clone with social passages as this would be useless. I think the motivation for this addition was basically that understanding "healthcare" now more than ever requires understanding not just physiology but broader systemic concepts that intersect with sociology and psychology. I'm actually surprised by how little people understand (i.e. everyone knows that stereotypes are "bad", but how does this affect health, what does it look like quantitatively, in what ways does the medical system contribute to this, etc). That's incredible that WUSTL did not have a sociology major! I'm definitely biased, but I find sociology to be more important than psychology (especially if one is not going to go into deep behavioral psychology) for aspiring doctors. This new change will definitely be a short in the arm for a lot of sociology departments.

 

[LizzyM]

How do you think this will affect the cycle?

I'm stuck between wondering that out of fear, more under-qualified applicants who apply will get in, or more qualified applicants might not get in because the old MCAT is preferred. In anyway, I think this will fudge a lot of historical stats.

From historical data, we know that anyone with a score of 26 or higher on the MCAT is "good enough" to get through med school and the vast majority of applicants who are admitted with scores < 26 graduate in 4 years.

I have grown frustrated with the old MCAT and the way a 35 is considered far less than a 39 although by percentile they are very close. (a 25 and a 29 are not very close on the other hand). My understanding is that the AAMC is going to try to move us toward thinking about central tendency and the middle of the pack without worrying too much about the extreme ends (or end as we tend to focus only on the highest scores).

I think that the number of applicants will not decline because this year we will get the rush of applicants with old scores getting in before a deadline and next year we will get the bolus of applicants who took a year off before applying so as to avoid being in the first group applying with the new MCAT. With more than twice as many applicants as seats nation-wide, I have no worries that every school will be more than able to fill its class with qualified applicants.

 

[Narmerguy]

From historical data, we know that anyone with a score of 26 or higher on the MCAT is "good enough" to get through med school and the vast majority of applicants who are admitted with scores < 26 graduate in 4 years.

I have grown frustrated with the old MCAT and the way a 35 is considered far less than a 39 although by percentile they are very close. (a 25 and a 29 are not very close on the other hand). My understanding is that the AAMC is going to try to move us toward thinking about central tendency and the middle of the pack without worrying too much about the extreme ends (or end as we tend to focus only on the highest scores).

I think that the number of applicants will not decline because this year we will get the rush of applicants with old scores getting in before a deadline and next year we will get the bolus of applicants who took a year off before applying so as to avoid being in the first group applying with the new MCAT. With more than twice as many applicants as seats nation-wide, I have no worries that every school will be more than able to fill its class with qualified applicants.

I'm skeptical of this. So long as aggregate MCAT scores are still used to rank schools, and so long as admissions staff see the MCAT as an important, quantitative, standardized stratifier of applicants, there will be significant pressure and incentive to try to maximize MCAT scores. Top schools don't want "central tendency", they want "leaders" who can exemplify themselves academically as well as personally and professionally.

I share your frustration, but, much like Step1, SAT, GRE, and every other standardized exam, it is too easy a tool to interpret "bigger is better". I do not anticipate meaningful change unless scores are reported in a meaningfully different way. Changing the number scale is not, in my opinion, sufficiently meaningful. Reporting applicants in "clusters" (for example those with "highest performance", "high performance", "sufficient performance", "questionable performance", "inadequate performance", "woeful performance", etc) that prevent the sort of hair-splitting admissions staff are prone to would be a great but pie-in-the-sky adjustment.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I think they should have provided 3 practice exams for the 2015 takers. I figure they'd have enough data to pull this off by now.

 

[sazerac]

Schools that used to have 5% acceptance rates now have 1-2% acceptance rates.

The same number of people are just applying to more medical schools.

 

[masaraksh]

From historical data, we know that anyone with a score of 26 or higher on the MCAT is "good enough" to get through med school and the vast majority of applicants who are admitted with scores < 26 graduate in 4 years.

I have grown frustrated with the old MCAT and the way a 35 is considered far less than a 39 although by percentile they are very close. (a 25 and a 29 are not very close on the other hand). My understanding is that the AAMC is going to try to move us toward thinking about central tendency and the middle of the pack without worrying too much about the extreme ends (or end as we tend to focus only on the highest scores).

I think that the number of applicants will not decline because this year we will get the rush of applicants with old scores getting in before a deadline and next year we will get the bolus of applicants who took a year off before applying so as to avoid being in the first group applying with the new MCAT. With more than twice as many applicants as seats nation-wide, I have no worries that every school will be more than able to fill its class with qualified applicants.

Right, and that doesn't at all have to do with the fact that once a student is accepted and 'there', the school has a bazillion resources and whatever to help the <26 ('slow') students before actually kicking them out. Things like remediation, tutoring, getting course directors to help them 1-on-1, etc. Please.

 

[ski89]

I'm skeptical of this. So long as aggregate MCAT scores are still used to rank schools, and so long as admissions staff see the MCAT as an important, quantitative, standardized stratifier of applicants, there will be significant pressure and incentive to try to maximize MCAT scores. Top schools don't want "central tendency", they want "leaders" who can exemplify themselves academically as well as personally and professionally.

I share your frustration, but, much like Step1, SAT, GRE, and every other standardized exam, it is too easy a tool to interpret "bigger is better". I do not anticipate meaningful change unless scores are reported in a meaningfully different way. Changing the number scale is not, in my opinion, sufficiently meaningful. Reporting applicants in "clusters" (for example those with "highest performance", "high performance", "sufficient performance", "questionable performance", "inadequate performance", "woeful performance", etc) that prevent the sort of hair-splitting admissions staff are prone to would be a great but pie-in-the-sky adjustment.

I think that's a fantastic idea. Makes total sense especially given the ruthless way the MCAT is scored once you get into the 30s. For all I know I was one question away in each section to a 35 as oppose to a 32, a big difference in the eyes of ADCOMs, but hardly represents a significant gap in knowledge or aptitude (IMO). Clusters would largely eliminate what is essentially an artificial difference in my estimation.

Sadly this will never happen because schools love metrics that they can tout to prove their superiority. I'm not hating the players though, just the game.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[gyngyn]

I have grown frustrated with the old MCAT and the way a 35 is considered far less than a 39 although by percentile they are very close. (a 25 and a 29 are not very close on the other hand). My understanding is that the AAMC is going to try to move us toward thinking about central tendency and the middle of the pack without worrying too much about the extreme ends (or end as we tend to focus only on the highest scores).

I've tried for years (decades!) to get this point across, with small results.
I fear the AAMC's efforts to focus on the central tendency will meet the same fate.
I sometimes think that the schools (like mine) that have had the luxury of filling with very high stat applicants have lost the ability to teach students with competencies near the central tendency. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that we will find out any time soon.

 

[ski89]

I've tried for years (decades!) to get this point across, with small results.
I fear the AAMC's efforts to focus on the central tendency will meet the same fate.
I sometimes think that the schools (like mine) that have had the luxury of filling with very high stat applicants have lost the ability to teach students with competencies near the central tendency. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that we will find out any time soon.

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that some of the top institutions simply rely on the fact that their students are so stellar that they can practically teach themselves and the faculty therefore neglect their teaching duties?


Sent from my iPhone

 

[gyngyn]

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that some of the top institutions simply rely on the fact that their students are so stellar that they can practically teach themselves and the faculty therefore neglect their teaching duties?


Sent from my iPhone

It's not neglect, more like atrophy.

 

[LuluLovesMe]

It's not neglect, more like atrophy.

I don't know why this made me laugh.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I've tried for years (decades!) to get this point across, with small results.
I fear the AAMC's efforts to focus on the central tendency will meet the same fate.
I sometimes think that the schools (like mine) that have had the luxury of filling with very high stat applicants have lost the ability to teach students with competencies near the central tendency. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that we will find out any time soon.

Based on the old MCAT grading scale, what would you define as an ideal central tendency for a school like yours if a 35 or higher were indeed less common? A 33?

 

[gyngyn]

Based on the old MCAT grading scale, what would you define as an ideal central tendency for a school like yours if a 35 or higher were indeed less common? A 33?

One thing that deans and pre-meds have in common is a perception that schools with higher metrics are better schools. I have not been able to convince either group that real strength is in the depth and breadth of non-cognitive qualities displayed by the students. Couple this with the fact that an assessment of these qualities is inherently difficult and you can see that it is so much easier to just go for the numbers (as long as everything else is acceptable).

I don't believe that there is a magic MCAT. I have seen in over 35 years in this business that MCAT scores (after a point far below our median!) do not predict who will be the best students in the class. The best student in our current graduating class had an MCAT score that would put her out of the running for an interview today (at our school). I have to believe that she would have gotten in somewhere, though. Our loss.

If the MCAT were used the way that is intended (as a metric of competence) instead of a bragging tool, I do believe that we would all benefit.

 

[notbobtrustme]

The step 1 average is already 230. I anticipate that the minimum passing score will be raised to 200 to keep up with the higher average.

stick just about anyone with FA, Uworld and Pathoma and they can pass. Passing Step 1 is the easiest thing in all of med school.

 

[alpinism]

It might be 230 next year.

For 2014 the average was 228.

 

[Shams al Deen]

One thing that deans and pre-meds have in common is a perception that schools with higher metrics are better schools. I have not been able to convince either group that real strength is in the depth and breadth of non-cognitive qualities displayed by the students. Couple this with the fact that an assessment of these qualities is inherently difficult and you can see that it is so much easier to just go for the numbers (as long as everything else is acceptable).

I don't believe that there is a magic MCAT. I have seen in over 35 years in this business that MCAT scores (after a point far below our median!) do not predict who will be the best students in the class. The best student in our current graduating class had an MCAT score that would put her out of the running for an interview today (at our school). I have to believe that she would have gotten in somewhere, though. Our loss.

If the MCAT were used the way that is intended (as a metric of competence) instead of a bragging tool, I do believe that we would all benefit.

How about the Step 1 - MCAT correlation? Surely it's important to med schools that their students do well on Step 1. If they pick more 35+ kids, then they will get higher step 1 averages and better match lists. And lets be honest, a guy with a 36 just knows the basic sciences at a different level than the guy with a 30 ('competent' score).

 

[gyngyn]

How about the Step 1 - MCAT correlation? Surely it's important to med schools that their students do well on Step 1. If they pick more 35+ kids, then they will get higher step 1 averages and better match lists. And lets be honest, a guy with a 36 just knows the basic sciences at a different level than the guy with a 30 ('competent' score).

Step 1 scores well above passing are only important for the specialties with way more applicants than positions.
As long as students get scores that don't exclude them and apply to enough programs in a specialty to which they are well suited, everything works out well.

The student to which I was referring has programs fighting for her in a very competitive specialty. She had a 31 MCAT, her steps were really good. Her personal qualities are even better.

Good test takers usually get good scores. But after a certain point the difference does not matter for predicting residency outcomes.

 

[Gauss44]

Schools that used to have 5% acceptance rates now have 1-2% acceptance rates. Average stats for matriculated students are constantly increasing.

Why are more people applying to med schools? Did the '08 recession play any part?

Do you foresee this trend continuing or reversing?

Google Image, "world population growth." That graph should explain everything.

 

[Lucca]

I'm skeptical of this. So long as aggregate MCAT scores are still used to rank schools, and so long as admissions staff see the MCAT as an important, quantitative, standardized stratifier of applicants, there will be significant pressure and incentive to try to maximize MCAT scores. Top schools don't want "central tendency", they want "leaders" who can exemplify themselves academically as well as personally and professionally.

I share your frustration, but, much like Step1, SAT, GRE, and every other standardized exam, it is too easy a tool to interpret "bigger is better". I do not anticipate meaningful change unless scores are reported in a meaningfully different way. Changing the number scale is not, in my opinion, sufficiently meaningful. Reporting applicants in "clusters" (for example those with "highest performance", "high performance", "sufficient performance", "questionable performance", "inadequate performance", "woeful performance", etc) that prevent the sort of hair-splitting admissions staff are prone to would be a great but pie-in-the-sky adjustment.

This sounds like a wonderful and more direct way to get at what the AAMC claims to want in the first place. However, I agree that it is pie-in-the-sky.

 

[FFH]

One thing that deans and pre-meds have in common is a perception that schools with higher metrics are better schools. I have not been able to convince either group that real strength is in the depth and breadth of non-cognitive qualities displayed by the students. Couple this with the fact that an assessment of these qualities is inherently difficult and you can see that it is so much easier to just go for the numbers (as long as everything else is acceptable).

I don't believe that there is a magic MCAT. I have seen in over 35 years in this business that MCAT scores (after a point far below our median!) do not predict who will be the best students in the class. The best student in our current graduating class had an MCAT score that would put her out of the running for an interview today (at our school). I have to believe that she would have gotten in somewhere, though. Our loss.

If the MCAT were used the way that is intended (as a metric of competence) instead of a bragging tool, I do believe that we would all benefit.

This reminds me of what was said by the dean of another medical school that has the same luxury as your school. He said that the faculties were pushing him to have the scores emphasized more during admission. In a meeting, he asked the faculty members to each write down the names of 3 best students. He then asked the faculty if they believe XXX was among the best students and apparently most faculty members included XXX in their own lists. And it turned out XXX has the lowest MCAT score of his/her class

Obviously MCAT scores, just like the ones of SAT, are influenced by factors that have nothing to do with one's intellectual qualifications relevant to test. Students coming from affluent or supportive families can have a lot better time with getting the materials, getting the helps that they need and spending time to focus on the exam prep. I mean, the students at the place that I tutor, spend every single Saturday learning how to ace schools and exams from a brilliant teacher (not really brilliant, but devoted 😛), I have no doubt that they'd have an edge in prepping for exams for the rest of their academic careers when compared with other kids who can't afford prep schools.

While people like one of my former coworkers, who remained committed to her full time job helping her patients as a CRC, while having to deal with her own complicated family issues. She never really thought about getting a tutor because schools and exams just weren't the priorities for her family when she grew up. She studied all on her own. I think her 27 was quite impressive.

That being said, there is a possibility that it has been easier to get a high score in recent years. I got a 33 three years ago and a 39 this time around without much extra studying. Maybe the test prep materials are more inclusive, or maybe people've been getting better advice or maybe the curves changed. Your star pupil might very well have a 35 if she takes the MCAT now.

 

[LuluLovesMe]

This reminds me of what was said by the dean of another medical school that has the same luxury as your school. He said that the faculties were pushing him to have the scores emphasized more during admission. In a meeting, he asked the faculty members to each write down the names of 3 best students. He then asked the faculty if they believe XXX was among the best students and apparently most faculty members included XXX in their own lists. And it turned out XXX has the lowest MCAT score of his/her class

Obviously MCAT scores, just like the ones of SAT, are influenced by factors that have nothing to do with one's intellectual qualifications relevant to test. Students coming from affluent or supportive families can have a lot better time with getting the materials, getting the helps that they need and spending time to focus on the exam prep. While people like one of my former coworkers, who remained committed to her full time job which include helping elderlies research subjects to comply with complicated protocol requirements, while having to deal with her complicated family issues. She never had anyone to teach her how to study and how to apply to medical school and she tried to study on her own with very little time allowance. I think her 27 was quite impressive.

That being said, I somehow MCAT feel the got easier this few years. I got a 33 three years ago and a 39 this time around without much extra studying imo. Maybe the test prep materials are more inclusive, or maybe people've been getting better advice or maybe the curves changed. Your star pupil might very well have a 35 if she takes the MCAT now.

Why did you take it twice with 3 years in between? You didn't get in with a 33?

 

[knv2u]

New MCAT = more money for study material. I hope that their intention for this revision is that people actually won't have time/money to study for every detail that the new material covers. This could be a way to further analyze one's deductive/inductive reasoning beyond a VR section alone. Of course their will be some discrete questions for recalling cold, hard facts, but then again, trying to compartmentalize a patient's psycho-/social type can be irresponsible.

And I think this will be the major difference. My understanding is that the new exam relies more on analytical/critical thinking than the previous exam, meaning that those using rote memorization and weaker logical reasoning skills might be in trouble. At many institutions, it is possible to obtain a very high GPA in the curriculum as some schools emphasize rote memorization rather than critical thinking.

 

[amazing tekkers]

Atleast with the new mcat, it's guaranteed that my raw score will be higher than gunners from previous years.

 

[Bovary]

anyone with a score of 26 or higher on the MCAT is "good enough" to get through med school

a perception that schools with higher metrics are better schools.

Yes, a school full of 26-MCAT-scoring students would do just fine. The students would likely graduate and become great doctors. But among the many MCAT-students I've spoken with, people who get under ~30 on the MCAT are often smart or hard working, but rarely both. Students who are both smart and hard working score correspondingly.
And the students who score 37+ are, generally, exceptionally smart AND exceptionally hard working.

So looking at the most selective schools like Harvard, U Chicago, and Wash U with median MCAT scores of ~38: Does this mean they offer a better education than a school with lower metrics? NO! A motivated student can learn to become a great doctor nearly anywhere.

But, as LizzyM put it, I don't want to go to a school where my peers are merely "'good enough' to get through med school". I want to study medicine alongside the brightest and hardest working students. These are the students who score a 37+ on the MCAT and having these students as peers (not any other factor) is why the most selective/prestigious schools are "worth it".

 

[medic86]

Yes, a school full of 26-MCAT-scoring students would do just fine. The students would likely graduate and become great doctors. But among the many MCAT-students I've spoken with, people who get under ~30 on the MCAT are often smart or hard working, but rarely both. Students who are both smart and hard working score correspondingly.
And the students who score 37+ are, generally, exceptionally smart AND exceptionally hard working.

So looking at the most selective schools like Harvard, U Chicago, and Wash U with median MCAT scores of ~38: Does this mean they offer a better education than a school with lower metrics? NO! A motivated student can learn to become a great doctor nearly anywhere.

But, as LizzyM put it, I don't want to go to a school where my peers are merely "'good enough' to get through med school". I want to study medicine alongside the brightest and hardest working students. These are the students who score a 37+ on the MCAT and having these students as peers (not any other factor) is why the most selective/prestigious schools are "worth it".

Good point. There are always exceptions to the rule, however.

That guy that scored a 26 MCAT 3.5 GPA might just end up a better physician than the 37 MCAT 4.0 GPA in the end.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

So looking at the most selective schools like Harvard, U Chicago, and Wash U with median MCAT scores of ~38: Does this mean they offer a better education than a school with lower metrics? NO! A motivated student can learn to become a great doctor nearly anywhere.

But, as LizzyM put it, I don't want to go to a school where my peers are merely "'good enough' to get through med school". I want to study medicine alongside the brightest and hardest working students. These are the students who score a 37+ on the MCAT and having these students as peers (not any other factor) is why the most selective/prestigious schools are "worth it".

Some of the best and brightest students score in the 34-36 range (or even slightly lower). In fact, according to the latest US News Rankings, the median for Vanderbilt, UCSF, Hopkins, Duke, Baylor, and UCLA was a 35. So are these students less brighter and hardworking than the ones at at Wash U, Penn, and Pritzker? Clearly, there's a difference between a 29 and a 34, but IMO, once you break the 35 threshold, you're splitting atoms.

 

[TREDWISE]

Step 1 scores well above passing are only important for the specialties with way more applicants than positions.
As long as students get scores that don't exclude them and apply to enough programs in a specialty to which they are well suited, everything works out well.

The student to which I was referring has programs fighting for her in a very competitive specialty. She had a 31 MCAT, her steps were really good. Her personal qualities are even better.

Good test takers usually get good scores. But after a certain point the difference does not matter for predicting residency outcomes.

How do you get residency programs to fight over you?

 

[alpinism]

Some of the best and brightest students score in the 34-36 range (or even slightly lower). In fact, according to the latest US News Rankings, the median for Vanderbilt, UCSF, Hopkins, Duke, Baylor, and UCLA was a 35. So are these students less brighter and hardworking than the ones at at Wash U, Penn, and Pritzker? Clearly, there's a difference between a 29 and a 34, but IMO, once you break the 35 threshold, you're splitting atoms.

Exactly.

Statistically speaking any score between 35-45 is essentially the same. All 95th percentile or higher.
Hell everyone who scores 38-45 is in the 99th percentile.

It's only when you get down into the lower 30s that the scores start to separate out and have any meaningful difference.

For example:
33 = 90th percentile
30 = 78th percentile

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/361080/data/combined13.pdf.pdf

That's why when most people refer to top 10/20/40 or whatever they're usually speaking about academic and research opportunities not MCAT averages. Generally speaking at any top 40 school with an MCAT average of 33+ you'll have both extremely smart and hard working students.

As for the lower MCAT scores and getting through med school, there definitely is a correlation between MCAT score and being able to pass classes and boards. While there are always exceptions, the majority of students who score under 27 (60th percentile) seem to have more difficulty passing exams even after studying 12 hours a day. Personally speaking I'd be hesitant to accept anyone with less than a 25 (roughly 50th percentile) because there's a good chance that they might not be able to handle the curriculum pace and USMLE questions. With class averages in the lower 20s, you're basically in Caribbean territory and can expect to lose as much as 25% of the class every year if not more.

 

[Bovary]

Some of the best and brightest students score in the 34-36 range (or even slightly lower). In fact, according to the latest US News Rankings, the median for Vanderbilt, UCSF, Hopkins, Duke, Baylor, and UCLA was a 35. So are these students less brighter and hardworking than the ones at at Wash U, Penn, and Pritzker? Clearly, there's a difference between a 29 and a 34, but IMO, once you break the 35 threshold, you're splitting atoms.

No, you're right, my number of a 37+ was pretty arbitrary. You're already at the point of diminishing returns once you hit the mid 30s. However, it's not luck that gets you from a 35 to a 40; some students consistently score around a 40 on practice tests then do so again on the real thing.

Another benefit of being able to score well on standardized tests: the kids who get 40s on their MCAT might be able to study five hours a day then have free time to go do whatever else. Say, rock climbing and art watching. The kids who get 30s have to study for seven hours a day to do just as well. (These are again arbitrary values to illustrate a hypothetical trend). I'd rather go to school with the people who have more free time to hang out and do mind-and-body-nourishing activities outside of the classroom.

 

[TeamBorealis]

Nope

+1.

@Bovary How can you possibly say the 30 kids weren't the ones with lives and the 40 kids were the ones who wanted to crush this test so badly they gave up showering? Now you're attributing attitude to MCAT score so I think it's safe to say this has gone too far!

 

[gyngyn]

How do you get residency programs to fight over you?

She had a Step 1 score high enough to keep her from being screened out. She had research in the field. She had letters from well known faculty.

She got interviews in the best programs because her clinical evals all described a powerful ability to communicate with patients, students, residents and faculty (with examples). Everywhere she interviewed, everyone wanted her in their program (both residents and faculty) because her personality shines. She has none of the qualities shunned by PD's and all of the ones they want.

 

[veryborderlineapplicant]

Yes, a school full of 26-MCAT-scoring students would do just fine. The students would likely graduate and become great doctors. But among the many MCAT-students I've spoken with, people who get under ~30 on the MCAT are often smart or hard working, but rarely both. Students who are both smart and hard working score correspondingly.
And the students who score 37+ are, generally, exceptionally smart AND exceptionally hard working.

So looking at the most selective schools like Harvard, U Chicago, and Wash U with median MCAT scores of ~38: Does this mean they offer a better education than a school with lower metrics? NO! A motivated student can learn to become a great doctor nearly anywhere.

But, as LizzyM put it, I don't want to go to a school where my peers are merely "'good enough' to get through med school". I want to study medicine alongside the brightest and hardest working students. These are the students who score a 37+ on the MCAT and having these students as peers (not any other factor) is why the most selective/prestigious schools are "worth it".

What an atrocious generalization. You can't line people up and say "okay you're hard working" and "oh you're hardworking and smart" based off of standardized test scores. In the world of non-sdn a 25 is an average score on the mcat, so a lot of people who are hard-working and smart definitely do score 26s-29s.