“It’s time to abolish the MCAT”

[751866]

But for all that, supposedly, COMLEX correlates way better with grades than MCAT with students at my school.

Why is it anything ground breaking that a test of competence on subject matter (comlex) is highly related to the summary measures (class grades for the curriculum of COMLEX) as opposed to a different test not designed to test the competency of that material?

This is like saying “it’s surprising the final exam is predicted well by the 3 course exams, and this is surprising since the SAT score is used to get into college.”

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Osteosaur]

Why is it anything ground breaking that a test of competence on subject matter (comlex) is highly related to the summary measures (class grades for the curriculum of COMLEX) as opposed to a different test not designed to test the competency of that material?

This is like saying “it’s surprising the final exam is predicted well by the 3 course exams, and this is surprising since the SAT score is used to get into college.”

Its not really surprising at all?

But will test better predictive of medical school and step performance always be desirable? I think so! That's what the admissions process is all about, isn't it? Obviously the test-taker is a different person in some ways 2 years later, but if the test is keeping people out (who might do well!) that might not be such a good thing,

 

[751866]

Its not really surprising at all?

But will test better predictive of medical school and step performance always be desirable? I think so! That's what the admissions process is all about, isn't it? Obviously the test-taker is a different person in some ways 2 years later, but if the test is keeping people out (who might do well!) that might not be such a good thing,

So is your suggestion that the MCAT is a worse predictor of medical school performance (grades) than the COMLEX? I just want to make sure I understand your point.

 

[AromaticOreo]

With people coming from such a broad spectrum of different UGs with different grading systems, curves, curriculums, name recognition etc.. The MCAT is a necessary evil to compare people on the same playing field. Also, standardized tests are at the core of medical education, unfortunately, and I do not see that changing any time soon. Might as well start getting used to it early. They don't go away in residency and beyond either...

 

[pawprint]

In the Navy, before fighter jet pilots start flight school, they take a standardized exam covering material commonly taken in college. The purpose isn’t to see how smart people are, the purpose is to see how these applicants react to a stressful situation. And then when they start flight school, the testing situations are again designed to test one’s ability to prepare for and undergo stress, not necessarily about the actual test topics.

Medicine functions the same way. These standardized tests are important because they test people’s ability to prepare for and then undergo a very long and stressful situation. Does anybody care how much organic chemistry you remember? No, but what matters is that you are given a subject and asked to prepare for a stressful test that requires you to recall information in a specific way.

Actual medicine is very similar to this (especially during residency). There will be times where you are thrust into a stressful situation and you need to have prepared appropriately. If you can’t make fast-paced, concrete decisions under a high stress environment, you shouldn’t become a physician.

 

[libertyyne]

In the Navy, before fighter jet pilots start flight school, they take a standardized exam covering material commonly taken in college. The purpose isn’t to see how smart people are, the purpose is to see how these applicants react to a stressful situation. And then when they start flight school, the testing situations are again designed to test one’s ability to prepare for and undergo stress, not necessarily about the actual test topics.

Medicine functions the same way. These standardized tests are important because they test people’s ability to prepare for and then undergo a very long and stressful situation. Does anybody care how much organic chemistry you remember? No, but what matters is that you are given a subject and asked to prepare for a stressful test that requires you to recall information in a specific way.

Actual medicine is very similar to this (especially during residency). There will be times where you are thrust into a stressful situation and you need to have prepared appropriately. If you can’t make fast-paced, concrete decisions under a high stress environment, you shouldn’t become a physician.

Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? Last I checked there are no studies that indicate performing well on multiple choice questions contributes to improved patient outcomes. The only studies that do exist look at ability to pass specialty boards, which themselves are multiple choice questions.

 

[751866]

Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? Last I checked there are no studies that indicate performing well on multiple choice questions contributes to improved patient outcomes. The only studies that do exist look at ability to pass specialty boards, which themselves are multiple choice questions.

Someone believes it enough to use the MCAT and step exams as a barrier to providing medical care (the end result if you’re successful to get into med school then pass boards). Surely Joe Schmoe who couldn’t hack the mcat wouldn’t be a successful doctor had they been admitted. People like to avoid the uncomfortable truth that all of these tests measure some dimensions of intelligence and knowledge.

I don’t necessarily agree with the poster above you (although I do to an extent), but remember not to equate absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and clearly someone did think MC tests have utility for selecting doctors, at some level (and it’s a logical fallacy).

 

[pawprint]

Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? Last I checked there are no studies that indicate performing well on multiple choice questions contributes to improved patient outcomes. The only studies that do exist look at ability to pass specialty boards, which themselves are multiple choice questions.

I do not know if there are studies on patient outcomes, I would guess likely not but I have not looked. I am not saying taking more multiple choice tests improves patient outcomes. But I do think that these long, timed tests do a good job at testing applicants ability to respond to similar stress that is encountered during residency.

For example, lets say you are on call one evening in the Neonatal ICU. You are going to your 5th delivery overnight on your 28 hour shift (lets say you've been at work 20 hours at this point). As the baby is being delivered by C-section, you notice the baby is blue, floppy, and not crying. You are the only doctor there (the attending is at home) so you are leading the resuscitation and you are tired. You have to quickly go from a low-stress normal delivery to "high-stress, this baby will die unless you do all the right things" moment.

The MCAT tests multiple basic things you need to do in a high-stress situation. Biology tests your ability to memorize scientific facts. In this situation, you need to know which drugs you need to reach for and what exactly they are doing and how they will change the baby's vital signs. Organic chemistry tests your ability to memorize pathways. The baby is basically coded and you need to know, based on how the baby looks/sounds/the inciting situation, which NRP (its like ACLS but for newborns) pathway you should use off the top of your head and use it precisely. Physics tests your ability to memorize stupid equations and apply them. This baby is going to need emergent central line placement which uses specific formula's you need to have memorized to get the appropriate depth. You also need to be able to give the correct medication dosage based on weight and start weigh based ventilator settings. The psychology/social sciences sections test your ability to understand different points of thought. You are leading a team of nurses and need to understand what people are thinking to be able to effectively communicate with them. All of this is happening second-by-second over a 10-15 minute period.

The underlying subject material of the MCAT really isnt important. The MCAT is testing your ability to respond quickly to the types of questions you encounter in real life medicine. You need to know how to memorize stupid equations and recall them quickly, you need to memorize a bunch of pathways/algorithms and recall them quickly and precisely, you need to memorize random science facts, and you need to know how to respond quickly to social situations. The MCAT doesn't test these things perfectly, which is why it is constantly changing. But the test itself is a good measure of stress adaptability that can easily relate to actual medicine.

 

[libertyyne]

Someone believes it enough to use the MCAT and step exams as a barrier to providing medical care (the end result if you’re successful to get into med school then pass boards). Surely Joe Schmoe who couldn’t hack the mcat wouldn’t be a successful doctor had they been admitted. People like to avoid the uncomfortable truth that all of these tests measure some dimensions of intelligence and knowledge.

I don’t necessarily agree with the poster above you (although I do to an extent), but remember not to equate absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and clearly someone did think MC tests have utility for selecting doctors, at some level (and it’s a logical fallacy).

This is not the case you can have a sub 500 mcat and still become a practicing doctor via Osteopathic medicine or Caribbean schools. No one actually sat down and thought MC tests have utility for selecting doctors. MC tests are administered because they are the easiest to score, imagine trying to score 50k essay questions objectively. This does not mean they are better or even provide the desired outcome of selecting doctors that improve patient outcomes. The mcat is not even considered a valid test for IQ measurements , the old test used to in the 90's.

I do not know if there are studies on patient outcomes, I would guess likely not but I have not looked. I am not saying taking more multiple choice tests improves patient outcomes. But I do think that these long, timed tests do a good job at testing applicants ability to respond to similar stress that is encountered during residency.

For example, lets say you are on call one evening in the Neonatal ICU. You are going to your 5th delivery overnight on your 28 hour shift (lets say you've been at work 20 hours at this point). As the baby is being delivered by C-section, you notice the baby is blue, floppy, and not crying. You are the only doctor there (the attending is at home) so you are leading the resuscitation and you are tired. You have to quickly go from a low-stress normal delivery to "high-stress, this baby will die unless you do all the right things" moment.

The MCAT tests multiple basic things you need to do in a high-stress situation. Biology tests your ability to memorize scientific facts. In this situation, you need to know which drugs you need to reach for and what exactly they are doing and how they will change the baby's vital signs. Organic chemistry tests your ability to memorize pathways. The baby is basically coded and you need to know, based on how the baby looks/sounds/the inciting situation, which NRP (its like ACLS but for newborns) pathway you should use off the top of your head and use it precisely. Physics tests your ability to memorize stupid equations and apply them. This baby is going to need emergent central line placement which uses specific formula's you need to have memorized to get the appropriate depth. You also need to be able to give the correct medication dosage based on weight and start weigh based ventilator settings. The psychology/social sciences sections test your ability to understand different points of thought. You are leading a team of nurses and need to understand what people are thinking to be able to effectively communicate with them. All of this is happening second-by-second over a 10-15 minute period.

The underlying subject material of the MCAT really isnt important. The MCAT is testing your ability to respond quickly to the types of questions you encounter in real life medicine. You need to know how to memorize stupid equations and recall them quickly, you need to memorize a bunch of pathways/algorithms and recall them quickly and precisely, you need to memorize random science facts, and you need to know how to respond quickly to social situations. The MCAT doesn't test these things perfectly, which is why it is constantly changing. But the test itself is a good measure of stress adaptability that can easily relate to actual medicine.

Although an interesting take there is really no evidence to say that doing well on the mcat means you will be excellent at doing all of those things. We all know people who absolutely crush MCQs but are unable to interact in a meaningful way with their peers or patients. Patients do not walk in with MCQ choices plastered on their faces.
There are practicing doctors with absolute terrible MCATs out there, there is no real evidence to suggest that they are a killing patients at a higher rate than higher performing doctors. There is no evidence that the stress of taking MCATs or what ever you are suggesting is a valid test or even comparison to the stress of managing acutely ill patients. Ability to respond quickly and correctly in an MCQ is drastically different than responding quickly and correctly on the wards.

Furthermore everything you learn even in step 1 is almost completely forgetten by the time you graduate from residency or shortly there after.You are going to learn how to manage patient by seeing it done and doing it on the wards. It is a compeletely different skill set compared to doing a large number of practice MCAT questions or cramming factoids and buzzwords in your head for step 1.

The only thing the MCAT actually does is provide Medical school admissions with a measure which gives some predictive ability of completing the first two years of medical school successfully.Even then the threshold is very low and close to 500. IT is realistically the only thing was designed for and somewhat validated for. Beyond that not so much.

 

[samac]

...Hey I forgot I made this thread in my ERAS fueled panic
It's about as polarizing as I expected though.

 

[751866]

This is not the case you can have a sub 500 mcat and still become a practicing doctor via Osteopathic medicine or Caribbean schools. No one actually sat down and thought MC tests have utility for selecting doctors. MC tests are administered because they are the easiest to score, imagine trying to score 50k essay questions objectively. This does not mean they are better or even provide the desired outcome of selecting doctors that improve patient outcomes. The mcat is not even considered a valid test for IQ measurements , the old test used to in the 90's.

You're arguing a point I didn't make; the problem with your argument is that people who never make it to medical school (many due to the MCAT) can't practice so we don't know how their outcomes would have been. And, really, I'm sure we have below the median test takers become great doctors just as 90th percentile people can suck as doctors. I also never said the MC tests are better for selecting better doctors, so again, your talking point is something I never said. Do you have a source showing the MCAT is not related to IQ (you know, since you asked for a source before)? The old test in the 90s was more based on rote-memorization whereas today's test is more about abstract, conceptual thinking; the latter is more about intelligence than the former. Again, I'm not claiming the MCAT indicates better doctors, it was just a point that your argument was a bit silly (because anyone who did bad enough on the MCAT couldn't get in).

Although an interesting take there is really no evidence to say that doing well on the mcat means you will be excellent at doing all of those things. We all know people who absolutely crush MCQs but are unable to interact in a meaningful way with their peers or patients. Patients do not walk in with MCQ choices plastered on their faces.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We also know kids who stink at MCQ but have anki memorized and can't put together disease/presentation variants because they didn't show up like the Anki card, the kid who can't answer "why" questions, or the kid who doesn't get why the guideline wasn't followed.

There are practicing doctors with absolute terrible MCATs out there, there is no real evidence to suggest that they are a killing patients at a higher rate than higher performing doctors.

I'm going to keep pointing out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-- you're employing a very flawed argument. I don't think low MCAT docs have worse outcomes, but I think your argument could be structured in a logical way rather than "there's no research saying that!!!"

Furthermore everything you learn even in step 1 is almost completely forgetten by the time you graduate from residency or shortly there after.You are going to learn how to manage patient by seeing it done and doing it on the wards. It is a compeletely different skill set compared to doing a large number of practice MCAT questions or cramming factoids and buzzwords in your head for step 1.

And these tests do relate to knowledge and intelligence, both of which are required to a certain level in medicine...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This is not the case you can have a sub 500 mcat and still become a practicing doctor via Osteopathic medicine or Caribbean schools.

Or USMD schools if they have a good story or mitigating factors. There is some good evidence that it predicts successfully completing medical school, but that doesn't mean you'll be a "good" physician, as you pointed out.

 

[751866]

Or USMD schools if they have a good story or mitigating factors. There is some good evidence that it predicts successfully completing medical school, but that doesn't mean you'll be a "good" physician, as you pointed out.

Right, I'm arguing that we don't know if it already filtered out many "bad docs" who never got to medical school and never got to practice, so we don't know their outcomes. It makes the point that the argument is not testable and both are reasonable. No one can deny that practicing medicine requires some combination of knowledge and intelligence that's above some threshold (don't know what that is, specifically).

I don't personally think that MCAT performance is linked to patient outcomes, but I'm just saying this is a poor argument.

 

[libertyyne]

You're arguing a point I didn't make; the problem with your argument is that people who never make it to medical school (many due to the MCAT) can't practice so we don't know how their outcomes would have been.

You missed the point where I talked about people going to osteopathic schools or carribean schools with sub 500 mcats. Literally thousands of practicing doctors.

And, really, I'm sure we have below the median test takers become great doctors just as 90th percentile people can suck as doctors. I also never said the MC tests are better for selecting better doctors, so again, your talking point is something I never said.

You said "Someone believes it enough to use the MCAT and step exams as a barrier to providing medical care"
"clearly someone did think MC tests have utility for selecting doctors, "
So yes you are in a sense making the point that MC tests have utility for selecting doctors and better doctors at that because why would anyone select for bad doctors?

Do you have a source showing the MCAT is not related to IQ (you know, since you asked for a source before)? The old test in the 90s was more based on rote-memorization whereas today's test is more about abstract, conceptual thinking; the latter is more about intelligence than the former. Again, I'm not claiming the MCAT indicates better doctors, it was just a point that your argument was a bit silly (because anyone who did bad enough on the MCAT couldn't get in).

The MCAT IQ correlation was based on the fact that MENSA doesnt accept the newer MCATs anymore.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1972-matarazzo.pdf

That is an older study that talks about the association between the older MCAT and IQ scores.


You seem to be continually missing the point that people with poor MCATs do get into medical school osteopathic schools have 1/4th of their class from sub 500 mcats. So yes there are people who do poorly on the mcat and go on to pass medical school and become physicians.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We also know kids who stink at MCQ but have anki memorized and can't put together disease/presentation variants because they didn't show up like the Anki card, the kid who can't answer "why" questions, or the kid who doesn't get why the guideline wasn't followed.

I'm going to keep pointing out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-- you're employing a very flawed argument. I don't think low MCAT docs have worse outcomes, but I think your argument could be structured in a logical way rather than "there's no research saying that!!!"

And these tests do relate to knowledge and intelligence, both of which are required to a certain level in medicine...

The person who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof of providing the evidence. Not the person arguing against the assertion. I did not make the assertion that MCAT scores demonstrate a skill set that is important in medicine.

I never said memorizing anki was a better alternative.

Here is a MilMed study showing no statistically significant correlation between MCAT and OSCEs or PGY1 performance .

Does the MCAT predict medical school and PGY-1 performance? - PubMed

MCAT scores were weakly to moderately associated with assessments that rely on multiple choice testing. The association is somewhat stronger for assessments occurring earlier in medical school, such as USMLE Step 1. The MCAT was not able to predict assessments relying on direct clinical...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There are plenty of physicians out there practicing medicine who had really ****ty MCAT performance. This indicates that having a high MCAT is not a pre-requisite for practicing medicine. There are many FMGs who never even took the thing.


There are limitations to our selection tools and rather than generalize applicability without evidence its probably better if we actively acknowledge their limitations.

One does not need to write an essay on the things that mcat clearly does not test that are important as being a physician as they are patently obvious. Like humanism, building rapport with patients, ability to retrieve information from sources, conscientiousness, working on a team, getting along with co-workers etc.

 

[751866]

You missed the point where I talked about people going to osteopathic schools or carribean schools with sub 500 mcats. Literally thousands of practicing doctors.

So, these people got into medical school, right? I literally said the people who did not get into medical school (unless you don't count DO and Caribbean students who successfully complete step exams (also part of my argument)-- I never said MD students.) I got your point, but it was irrelevant because those people got into medical school.

You said "Someone believes it enough to use the MCAT and step exams as a barrier to providing medical care"
"clearly someone did think MC tests have utility for selecting doctors, "
So yes you are in a sense making the point that MC tests have utility for selecting doctors and better doctors at that because why would anyone select for bad doctors?

I did say that someone believes it. You clearly read what I wrote, but seem to miss that I am not giving my position, but pointing out that someone in a high-enough place thought these were relevant to the process. Bringing up counter arguments doesn't make them my own, but you're making very definitive statements that don't fit reality. Yes, obviously someone thought they were useful at some point. If you connect the dots of MCAT-> med school -> Step exams -> practice, fail either of the MC exam steps and you can't practice-- someone did think it was useful. I'm not supporting their decision or that side, but pointing out the very obvious.

The MCAT IQ correlation was based on the fact that MENSA doesnt accept the newer MCATs anymore.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1972-matarazzo.pdf

That is an older study that talks about the association between the older MCAT and IQ scores.

Do you have a newer one for why MENSA has decided against it? Also, citing MENSA as the arbiter isn't exactly a strong argument; it is again, a logical fallacy-- the appeal to authority. I would also wager that people who tend to score better on intelligence/aptitude tests, tend to do better on the MCAT and Step exams. That doesn't mean the MCAT or Step exams are designed or validated to measure intelligence, though, but it doesn't mean those things aren't related. Validating a test for a purpose doesn't magically make an association appear or an underlying construct develop between the two.

You seem to be continually missing the point that people with poor MCATs do get into medical school osteopathic schools have 1/4th of their class from sub 500 mcats. So yes there are people who do poorly on the mcat and go on to pass medical school and become physicians.

You're defeating your own argument against me as I said, in no uncertain terms, people who do not get in because of the MCAT. I can't be any clearer than that, and you are making an argument at an irrelevant point (again, unless DO and caribbean isn't real medical school to you). You can go find that in my post-- people who do not get into medical school.

The person who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof of providing the evidence. Not the person arguing against the assertion. I did not make the assertion that MCAT scores demonstrate a skill set that is important in medicine.

I agree that someone who makes a claim needs to supply the evidence. You didn't simply ask for evidence, you constructed a poor attempt to dismantle the claim by saying there are no such studies to show what the OP said.

I never said memorizing anki was a better alternative.

I didn't say you did, but I provided another example to the scenarios.

Here is a MilMed study showing no statistically significant correlation between MCAT and OSCEs or PGY1 performance .

Does the MCAT predict medical school and PGY-1 performance? - PubMed

MCAT scores were weakly to moderately associated with assessments that rely on multiple choice testing. The association is somewhat stronger for assessments occurring earlier in medical school, such as USMLE Step 1. The MCAT was not able to predict assessments relying on direct clinical...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I want to ask you in very explicit terms to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that "no statistically significant correlation" means that there is no correlation between MCAT and OSCE/PGY-1 performance? If your answer is in the negative, then how are you interpreting "no statistically significant correlation," because either you're doing another "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument, or you misunderstand what statistical significance means (let alone see that the paper cited is pretty poorly done at almost every turn). This also neglects the idea that the MCAT may be used as a proxy for ability to master material in a relatively short time-- there is so much between the MCAT and PGY-1 (and PGY-20, say) that could cause very little association (if it were the case); important things are work ethic, burn out, interest in matched field... lots of things

There are plenty of physicians out there practicing medicine who had really ****ty MCAT performance.

Okay? Plenty practice well, some poorly. Same for high scorers. You went off on a tangent about DO and Caribbean candidates which were already included when I said people who got in to school.

This indicates that having a high MCAT is not a pre-requisite for practicing medicine. There are many FMGs who never even took the thing.

No one made that argument that it's a prerequisite to practice. My entire point as I restated several times was that your reply does nothing to the credibility of the poster's argument when you said "there's no study showing that" because that has no logical basis to undermine the other argument.

There are limitations to our selection tools and rather than generalize applicability without evidence its probably better if we actively acknowledge their limitations.

Isn't that what LOR, EC, interviews, and other stuff is for in the process? Last time I checked, the score wasn't the only factor.

One does not need to write an essay on the things that mcat clearly does not test that are important as being a physician as they are patently obvious. Like humanism, building rapport with patients, ability to retrieve information from sources, conscientiousness, working on a team, getting along with co-workers etc.

Right, but if someone makes a claim stating "doctors who had higher VR scores on the old MCAT probably are perceived as more humanistic by patients", you don't make any headway in debasing that argument by claiming there is no study to show that. That is unequivocally a logical fallacy. Not having data for a debate doesn't make the other side right, it just means the person making the claim lacks supporting data.

I want to be really clear in the final line: people who do not get into medical school are who I am referencing. The test may already filter out people who never get a chance to practice medicine. Your argument of "there's no evidence of that" doesn't hold water in a logical framework and is a well-known logical fallacy. That doesn't make you or the other side right. Logical fallacies are not valid arguments.

 

[libertyyne]

So, these people got into medical school, right? I literally said the people who did not get into medical school (unless you don't count DO and Caribbean students who successfully complete step exams (also part of my argument)-- I never said MD students.) I got your point, but it was irrelevant because those people got into medical school.

They did not get into MD schools which have high MCAT requirements. You are making a circular argument that people who get into medical schools obviously are ok to practice medicine, so is then the bar is just getting into medical school and not doing well on the MCAT?

I did say that someone believes it. You clearly read what I wrote, but seem to miss that I am not giving my position, but pointing out that someone in a high-enough place thought these were relevant to the process. Bringing up counter arguments doesn't make them my own, but you're making very definitive statements that don't fit reality. Yes, obviously someone thought they were useful at some point. If you connect the dots of MCAT-> med school -> Step exams -> practice, fail either of the MC exam steps and you can't practice-- someone did think it was useful. I'm not supporting their decision or that side, but pointing out the very obvious.

You are literally appealing to authority. Saying that someone higher up made the decision so it must be a good one. I gave you the reason why MCQ exams are as prevelant, not because they are great tests , but because they are easy to scale and score.

Do you have a newer one for why MENSA has decided against it? Also, citing MENSA as the arbiter isn't exactly a strong argument; it is again, a logical fallacy-- the appeal to authority. I would also wager that people who tend to score better on intelligence/aptitude tests, tend to do better on the MCAT and Step exams. That doesn't mean the MCAT or Step exams are designed or validated to measure intelligence, though, but it doesn't mean those things aren't related. Validating a test for a purpose doesn't magically make an association appear or an underlying construct develop between the two.

The rationale was based on the tests going from an aptitute test to requring a large portion of content mastery.
I am not saying there is no underlying correlation, but the question is of strength of correlation and the robustness of it.

You're defeating your own argument against me as I said, in no uncertain terms, people who do not get in because of the MCAT. I can't be any clearer than that, and you are making an argument at an irrelevant point (again, unless DO and caribbean isn't real medical school to you). You can go find that in my post-- people who do not get into medical school.

I am doing no such thing, Your argument is circular: if you get into medical school you must have good enough mcat to get into medical school, therefore we cant test if mcat scores result in better physicans.

The point is the threshold for MCAT is much higher for MD students and people who fail to get into medical school in MD schools go on to get admissions into DO and carribean schools and graduate just fine and practice medicine. So yes they are failing to get into the the standard school and opt for alternatives where they are able to gain admission.

So if the mcat is importat there would be higher rates of malpractice, poor patient outcomes for people who go to alternative routes of becoming a practicing physician.

I agree that someone who makes a claim needs to supply the evidence. You didn't simply ask for evidence, you constructed a poor attempt to dismantle the claim by saying there are no such studies to show what the OP said.

I didn't say you did, but I provided another example to the scenarios.

literally the first post of mine was
"Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? "
I wasnt even making any argument , it was an honest question to see if i had missed some literature on this question since the assertion seemed absurd.

I want to ask you in very explicit terms to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that "no statistically significant correlation" means that there is no correlation between MCAT and OSCE/PGY-1 performance? If your answer is in the negative, then how are you interpreting "no statistically significant correlation," because either you're doing another "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument, or you misunderstand what statistical significance means (let alone see that the paper cited is pretty poorly done at almost every turn). This also neglects the idea that the MCAT may be used as a proxy for ability to master material in a relatively short time-- there is so much between the MCAT and PGY-1 (and PGY-20, say) that could cause very little association (if it were the case); important things are work ethic, burn out, interest in matched field... lots of things

I never said there was no correlation. The paper may be of low quality but it is better than the alternative of pulling random assertions out of observations. If the effect size was large enough and pertinent enough there would be no issue in it showing up years later. Plus there is no reason that lower scoring students would experience more burnout or other confounding factors.

How is the MCAT a proxy for mastering material in a short time? People have varied schedules,study for longer or shorter amounts of time, take it years after graduating or during school.

Okay? Plenty practice well, some poorly. Same for high scorers. You went off on a tangent about DO and Caribbean candidates which were already included when I said people who got in to school.

No one made that argument that it's a prerequisite to practice. My entire point as I restated several times was that your reply does nothing to the credibility of the poster's argument when you said "there's no study showing that" because that has no logical basis to undermine the other argument.

Once again circular just because you got into medical school you have a good mcat. Sub 500 mcats are not good MCAT scores.


You are conflating me asking for data to back up an assertion with me saying it doesnt exisit. The claim itself was so absurd and novel that I was surprised anyone made it. Because I was under the impression that the status quo people acknowledge its not a great tool for selecting people but its the only objective tool we have. rather than saying it actually is a meanginful tool for selecting good physicians.

You are also conviently leaving out all the other arguments as to why testing stress is not like medical practice stress.

Isn't that what LOR, EC, interviews, and other stuff is for in the process? Last time I checked, the score wasn't the only factor.

Right, but if someone makes a claim stating "doctors who had higher VR scores on the old MCAT probably are perceived as more humanistic by patients", you don't make any headway in debasing that argument by claiming there is no study to show that. That is unequivocally a logical fallacy. Not having data for a debate doesn't make the other side right, it just means the person making the claim lacks supporting data.

I want to be really clear in the final line: people who do not get into medical school are who I am referencing. The test may already filter out people who never get a chance to practice medicine. Your argument of "there's no evidence of that" doesn't hold water in a logical framework and is a well-known logical fallacy. That doesn't make you or the other side right. Logical fallacies are not valid arguments.

once again circular argument. You have infact failed to get into MD school if you had to reapply to carribean or DO. SO you did not get into medical school.

 

[751866]

Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? Last I checked there are no studies that indicate performing well on multiple choice questions contributes to improved patient outcomes.

Although an interesting take there is really no evidence to say that doing well on the mcat means you will be excellent at doing all of those things.

You didn't say that? My mistake.

They did not get into MD schools which have high MCAT requirements. You are making a circular argument that people who get into medical schools obviously are ok to practice medicine, so is then the bar is just getting into medical school and not doing well on the MCAT?

I didn't specify MD programs, I said medical school. My reasoning is not circular by saying you have an un-testable hypothesis; a circular argument on my part would have made some assumption A, stated A implies B and then concluded A must be true then if we see B, which isn't what I did. I never said people are ok to practice medicine if they got it. I'm saying, if they don't get in, we don't know how they would have practiced medicine. I think this is getting a bit out of hand that you keep coming back with a) words that were never said b) things that do not follow/aren't accurate from what was said.

You are literally appealing to authority. Saying that someone higher up made the decision so it must be a good one. I gave you the reason why MCQ exams are as prevelant, not because they are great tests , but because they are easy to scale and score.

I don't know how to say this any clearer: I am not sharing my opinion on whether the MCAT screens effectively for better clinical practice. What I said was that someone thought this was in someway important. I'm not appealing to authority because I'm not saying this is valid, but I'm saying someone probably thought this at one point, so absolutes used in your initial post are a little dramatic. Again, this is not my view point, but someone clearly did think it was useful at one point; I'm not using this as an argument that the MCAT is a good screen, I'm using it to say your argument was dramatic by speaking in absolutes.

literally the first post of mine was
"Are there any studies to back up this assertion ? "
I wasnt even making any argument , it was an honest question to see if i had missed some literature on this question since the assertion seemed absurd.

When you follow it up with "Last time I checked...[no]..." then it seems a little like you've already done your research and decided there is no research.

You are also conviently leaving out all the other arguments as to why testing stress is not like medical practice stress.

It's convenient to do that because I'm not making an argument for or against--I was pointing out that your claim is untestable (unless MD is the only med school, you've yet to explicitly clarify), and you're saying there's no evidence for it (so what's your point? The statement doesn't strengthen or weaken either argument.

You have infact failed to get into MD school if you had to reapply to carribean or DO. SO you did not get into medical school.

So now you're twisting for a "First attempt acceptance to US MD school" or something weird like that.

I'm going to leave it at this, because there's no more productive discussion.

 

[username456789]

Ah excellence. More time about the MCAT not being a good quality measure.

Big whigs out there think that it’s time to make the MCAT more comprehensive by adding one more section and making it a 9 hr exam.

It was a ~9 hour exam when I took it in 2006.
On paper.
With essays.
In the snow.
Uphill both ways.

You kids already take a shortened version.

 

[Epilepsy365]

It was a ~9 hour exam when I took it in 2006.
On paper.
With essays.
In the snow.
Uphill both ways.

You kids already take a shortened version.

Did you go uphill in the snow with a 50 lbs duffel bag? If not, tsk... tsk... tsk...