http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-you-even-lift
"Once you cross 38 it all comes down to luck."
"Luck is in every 40+ score no matter if you admit it or not."
This is funny because if someone had attributed GTLO's score to luck in the 8/16 thread,
I'm sure you two would've pulled out the pitchforks. Both worked hard for their score and are equally deserving of it. End of story.
You are incorrect. GTLO is lucky in the sense that he got an MCAT exam that was very much like what he was used to in the practice AAMCs. I think he is mature and sensible enough about the MCAT to recognize this.
Luck is in every 40+ score whether the examinee wants to admit it or not.
The mistake you people keep on making is equating "luck" with undeserving, condescension, and the implication that the examinee we are talking about banked on luck.
Luck is necessary for top-notch scores, but nowhere near sufficient. (Aren't science majors supposed to have a special knack for seeing these types of relationships?
) This is why I said and will keep on saying that
y'all are way too uptight about the usage of these terms. It goes without saying that those scoring in the 40s worked hard. That is not the topic of our debate, and nor should it be. It is a stupid discussion to have, because we know they work hard. However, hard work with bad luck will get you scores 4-5 points below your AAMC average, which we know happens.
This is also why being called "lucky" is a compliment, and hardly ever an insult. Everyone needs luck. If you actually believe that luck does not play a large factor in standardized testing, all I can say that you are sadly misinformed, but you can believe what you want.
I consider environmental conditions, "adrenaline" leading to increased focus, and things of that sort all under the large, ambiguous umbrella of "luck." If the examinee has always done better under pressure and thus scores 5 points above his AAMC average, I consider him extremely lucky to have that trait, as the rest of population does not.
WRT the AAMC average thing, I guess what I am implicitly doing is judging how much "luck" factored into the score. This is obviously something that cannot be done quantitatively, and nor is there a clear-cut right or wrong answer, either. If that's what pisses you off, then is is understandable.
For me, someone who scored at their average didn't have as big a factor of luck going into their score (i.e., all conditions and everything else was normal), but someone who scores 5 above average (which remarkable, ICYDK how I actually see that phenomenon beneath all the uptightness and assumptions ITT) had a lot of things different during their exam, which again, I define as luck, since the examinee had little control over those factors.
Do you finally get it now?
