Why does the MCAT test endurance?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

stickgirl390

I tell chemistry jokes periodically.
5+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
1,817
Reaction score
2,796
Why is it necessary that the MCAT be 8 hours long, or any assessment for that matter? If an organization wants to know how well a person can analyze, evaluate, etc, wouldn't they want that person in somewhat alert condition? I feel like an 7-8 hour test isn't showing my best work to adcoms, and I know most of us would do better if the test were given in two 3.5 hr sittings.

So why all at once? If the answer is "because USMLE's are also very long tests", then my question is, why are those so long? And how long is too long before the length of the test starts affecting results and data gathered?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Why is it necessary that the MCAT be 8 hours long, or any assessment for that matter? If an organization wants to know how well a person can analyze, evaluate, etc, wouldn't they want that person in somewhat alert condition? I feel like an 7-8 hour test isn't showing my best work to adcoms, and I know most of us would do better if the test were given in two 3.5 hr sittings.

So why all at once? If the answer is "because USMLE's are also very long tests", then my question is, why are those so long? And how long is too long before the length of the test starts affecting results and data gathered?
Physicians usually work at least an 8 hr shift. You should be able to perform for that duration of time and optimally, even longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Physicians usually work at least an 8 hr shift. You should be able to perform for that duration of time and optimally, even longer.
I've never had an 8 hour "shift." To be completely clear, I've never had a shift (in medicine), though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I've never had an 8 hour "shift." To be completely clear, I've never had a shift (in medicine), though.
Perhaps I lack an understanding of the connotation of the word shift...
The physicians that I've shadowed in-hospital would usually stay at the hospital and remain busy (intellectually) for the duration of their time there. Is there a better word that I can use than "shift"?
 
Perhaps I lack an understanding of the connotation of the word shift...
The physicians that I've shadowed in-hospital would usually stay at the hospital and remain busy (intellectually) for the duration of their time there. Is there a better word that I can use than "shift"?
Hospitalists comprise the smallest sub-set of working doctors. I believe they do have "shifts."
For the rest of us, this is a foreign concept. The daily start time is often fixed (OR schedule, clinic, call...). The end time is variable, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hospitalists comprise the smallest sub-set of working doctors. I believe they do have "shifts."
For the rest of us, this is a foreign concept. The daily start time is often fixed (OR schedule, clinic, call...). The end time is variable, though.
Thank you for clearing that up; that's what I've seen during shadowing. I suppose I just used "shift" as a colloquialism for the time spent at work in a single stretch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Physicians usually work at least an 8 hr shift. You should be able to perform for that duration of time and optimally, even longer.
I'm a high school teacher, and I deal with chemistry and biology for 10 hours straight on some days. I don't have a problem doing that. My primary, complaint if you will, is sitting and staring at a computer screen for 8 hours straight. I even observed a surgeon perform an 8 hour surgery. Simply not being blasted in the face with artificial light and reading tiny words for that long makes surgury a significantly different task.

So why is the MCAT so long? I'm making the assumption that there is a reason, and I want to know if anyone knows what that reason is.
 
I'm a high school teacher, and I deal with chemistry and biology for 10 hours straight on some days. I don't have a problem doing that. My primary, complaint if you will, is sitting and staring at a computer screen for 8 hours straight. I even observed a surgeon perform an 8 hour surgery. Simply not being blasted in the face with artificial light and reading tiny words for that long makes surgury a significantly different task.

So why is the MCAT so long? I'm making the assumption that there is a reason, and I want to know if anyone knows what that reason is.
I also have teaching experience, and I don't think that teaching science is the same thing as being required to apply it to novel situations for 7 hours. I looked up MCAT policies to see if one would be allowed to take it in a written format, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I think the "reason" is simply to test endurance, and it's easiest for AAMC to do so in computerized format. I think endurance is an important aspect of medical training.
 
Last edited:
I also have teaching experience, and I don't think that teaching science is the same thing as being required to apply it to novel situations for 7 hours. I looked up MCAT policies to see if one would be allowed to take it in a written format, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I think the "reason" is simply to test endurance, and it's easiest for AAMC to do so in computerized format. I think endurance is an important aspect of medical training.
I agree that physical endurance is incredibly important to being a physician. The reason I brought up teaching is because the endurance required of a teacher is more similar to that of a physician than the MCAT.

I'm curious at what point the test shows people scoring poorly due to burn out, and otherwise excellent students appear as "poor med school candidates" due to lack of endurance, rather than missing content knowledge or reasoning skills.

Why 8 hours? What does the MCAT accomplish in 8 hours that it can't do in 5? Is there research that shows 9-10 passages per section is really necessary? Etc.
 
P/S is so much easier than the rest it doesn't count in the same way, and also you get breaks, so it's more like 4.5 h you really gotta be awake for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I love this post. For the past few months I always find myself asking 'Why has this exam been extended to 7.5 hours long?' The surgeon I am shadowing was asking me a few questions about the MCAT and I attempted to explain everything to him. And his response was "That is so stupid. They should limit the exam to 4 hours total, but what do I know, I'm only a surgeon."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I love this post. For the past few months I always find myself asking 'Why has this exam been extended to 7.5 hours long?' The surgeon I am shadowing was asking me a few questions about the MCAT and I attempted to explain everything to him. And his response was "That is so stupid. They should limit the exam to 4 hours total, but what do I know, I'm only a surgeon."

I'm assuming this surgeon was ancient enough that he didn't take boards, becuase board exams are 7-10 hours long...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm assuming this surgeon was ancient enough that he didn't take boards, becuase board exams are 7-10 hours long...
I believe he is still young, but looks can be deceiving lol. He told me that pre-med's shouldn't have to stress as much, because med school was going to bend us over backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The MCAT also never used to be such a high stakes test. The way some old doctors put it - they just rolled out of bed and took the test without a second thought. You score what you score and you get on with your life. It just seems like tests that used to be lower stakes are getting higher and higher stakes for younger and younger students. In some states, aptitude tests you take in pre-school determine what magnet schools you go to.
 
The MCAT also never used to be such a high stakes test. The way some old doctors put it - they just rolled out of bed and took the test without a second thought. You score what you score and you get on with your life. It just seems like tests that used to be lower stakes are getting higher and higher stakes for younger and younger students. In some states, aptitude tests you take in pre-school determine what magnet schools you go to.
Wow... I never knew that about the older Doc's, but I can totally see that happening. Testing nowadays seems so stressful for any and all students. For instance, when I took my ACT in high school, there was a student UPSET about a 31 ACT score because his parents wanted him to make a 35... Meanwhile, I'm sitting there hoping for a 25+ lol. I understand ADcoms need something to base our potential to handle Step 1 or Comlex, but I just hate there are so many hoops to jump through.
 
The MCAT also never used to be such a high stakes test. The way some old doctors put it - they just rolled out of bed and took the test without a second thought. You score what you score and you get on with your life. It just seems like tests that used to be lower stakes are getting higher and higher stakes for younger and younger students. In some states, aptitude tests you take in pre-school determine what magnet schools you go to.

Wow... I never knew that about the older Doc's, but I can totally see that happening. Testing nowadays seems so stressful for any and all students. For instance, when I took my ACT in high school, there was a student UPSET about a 31 ACT score because his parents wanted him to make a 35... Meanwhile, I'm sitting there hoping for a 25+ lol. I understand ADcoms need something to base our potential to handle Step 1 or Comlex, but I just hate there are so many hoops to jump through.

Yep. My mentor was an ortho who graduated in the 80's. He said the same thing and that there weren't even really things such as "competitive residencies". When he graduated med school, you could pretty just apply for whatever field you wanted regardless of how strong your class rank and board scores were and not have to worry too much about not getting in. Heck, I've shadowed guys that graduated in the 70's who didn't even take the MCAT before going to med school.
 
Wow... I never knew that about the older Doc's, but I can totally see that happening. Testing nowadays seems so stressful for any and all students. For instance, when I took my ACT in high school, there was a student UPSET about a 31 ACT score because his parents wanted him to make a 35... Meanwhile, I'm sitting there hoping for a 25+ lol. I understand ADcoms need something to base our potential to handle Step 1 or Comlex, but I just hate there are so many hoops to jump through.

I was actually surprised when I heard of parents hiring SAT tutors for their kids - and they pay a **** ton for those tutors too! I didn't even know about MCAT prep courses until I came on here - I didn't take any because in my opinion, they're ridiculously overpriced. But as long as there's a market for it, they'll always be around.
 
Yep. My mentor was an ortho who graduated in the 80's. He said the same thing and that there weren't even really things such as "competitive residencies". When he graduated med school, you could pretty just apply for whatever field you wanted regardless of how strong your class rank and board scores were and not have to worry too much about not getting in. Heck, I've shadowed guys that graduated in the 70's who didn't even take the MCAT before going to med school.

Or back in the good ol' days when the renowned gentleman from Kentucky went to med school when you didn't even need a bachelor's degree to get in!
 
Yep. My mentor was an ortho who graduated in the 80's. He said the same thing and that there weren't even really things such as "competitive residencies". When he graduated med school, you could pretty just apply for whatever field you wanted regardless of how strong your class rank and board scores were and not have to worry too much about not getting in. Heck, I've shadowed guys that graduated in the 70's who didn't even take the MCAT before going to med school.
Or back in the good ol' days when the renowned gentleman from Kentucky went to med school when you didn't even need a bachelor's degree to get in!
They didn't require the MCAT!?! Holy crap... Lol. A general surgeon I spoke with said that back in the day he done a little bit of everything. So I can only imagine he literally meant, everything. It is crazy how much the medical field has changed.

There is no way I would pay money for a SAT tutor. A Doctor I shadowed told me he drops 28k a year on both of his kids to go to a private school. I was dumbfounded and I spoke without thinking "They better get a full ride scholarship after high school. If not that is just money wasted." He started laughing, but I was still blown away how much school cost.
 
Or back in the good ol' days when the renowned gentleman from Kentucky went to med school when you didn't even need a bachelor's degree to get in!
They didn't require the MCAT!?! Holy crap... Lol. A general surgeon I spoke with said that back in the day he done a little bit of everything. So I can only imagine he literally meant, everything. It is crazy how much the medical field has changed.

There is no way I would pay money for a SAT tutor. A Doctor I shadowed told me he drops 28k a year on both of his kids to go to a private school. I was dumbfounded and I spoke without thinking "They better get a full ride scholarship after high school. If not that is just money wasted." He started laughing, but I was still blown away how much school cost.

Just pointing out that it really hasn't been that long since things have gotten extremely competitive and that there will continue to be more and more hoops to jump through to become a physician.

As for the private school aspect, I understand why some people would elect to pay to send their kids to private school. In two of the cities I lived in, the public school systems were absolutely atrocious. In one of the cities the system is so messed up that the high school graduation rate was only 55% when I lived there and was in high school. I was fortunate that I went to one of the better public schools, but I played sports with people who saw less than half of their class graduate. It's also pretty well-documented that public schools in that system only send about 1/4 of their students on to college. So for a parent who wants their kid to have a solid educational career beyond high school in that city, it's worth it for parents who can afford it to send their kids to private schools.
 
As for the private school aspect, I understand why some people would elect to pay to send their kids to private school. In two of the cities I lived in, the public school systems were absolutely atrocious. In one of the cities the system is so messed up that the high school graduation rate was only 55% when I lived there and was in high school. I was fortunate that I went to one of the better public schools, but I played sports with people who saw less than half of their class graduate. It's also pretty well-documented that public schools in that system only send about 1/4 of their students on to college. So for a parent who wants their kid to have a solid educational career beyond high school in that city, it's worth it for parents who can afford it to send their kids to private schools.

Keep in mind that college education is also only recently becoming the norm and the low rate of college attendance has only become obviously "low" by modern standards.

bachelors-pc-over-time.png
 
Keep in mind that college education is also only recently becoming the norm and the low rate of college attendance has only become obviously "low" by modern standards.

bachelors-pc-over-time.png
That's true, and a fair observation. However, that only further demonstrates the vast differences in opportunity and quality of schools between the public and private systems in cities like the ones I lived in. If a parent really wants their kid to go to college, and they can afford to spend 10's of thousands on hs tuition, it would be kind of stupid to send them to public school for free where the college acceptance rate is near 50% when they can send them to a private school that sends 95%+ of their students on to college.

While I get where you're coming from, I think that the new norm of graduating hs and going to college only serves to highlight and emphasize the disparities between the two systems in many areas of the country.
 
That's true, and a fair observation. However, that only further demonstrates the vast differences in opportunity and quality of schools between the public and private systems in cities like the ones I lived in. If a parent really wants their kid to go to college, and they can afford to spend 10's of thousands on hs tuition, it would be kind of stupid to send them to public school for free where the college acceptance rate is near 50% when they can send them to a private school that sends 95%+ of their students on to college.

While I get where you're coming from, I think that the new norm of graduating hs and going to college only serves to highlight and emphasize the disparities between the two systems in many areas of the country.

Yes, the disparity is a huge issue even though college education rates in general have seen a steep rise. You could make the argument that a large part of the increase is attributable to the wealthier and/or private schools that bring up the national average while public schools have been left behind. While I personally think that admission to the private schools should be based entirely on merit and not on ability to pay or district zones, this goes back to the problem of having higher and higher stakes testing at younger and younger ages.
 
Yes, the disparity is a huge issue even though college education rates in general have seen a steep rise. You could make the argument that a large part of the increase is attributable to the wealthier and/or private schools that bring up the national average while public schools have been left behind. While I personally think that admission to the private schools should be based entirely on merit and not on ability to pay or district zones, this goes back to the problem of having higher and higher stakes testing at younger and younger ages.

Some private schools do have that in place, however in order for a private school to continue functioning they have to have a certain level of funds at their disposal which can only be attained through either student tuition or some other form of fundraising. There are public prep schools available which you have to test into, but it goes back to the problem you stated about standardized testing. On the private side, there are also many schools which offer full scholarships to those with the test scores available, but they have to make that money up somewhere else. When it comes right down to it, money rules all. If the terrible public schools had access to the same level of funds/student as many private schools, it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that the government doesn't have or supply the same level of funds for the schools they fund that the rich have available. It's a completely financial issue that I don't think will be resolved any time soon.
 
Some private schools do have that in place, however in order for a private school to continue functioning they have to have a certain level of funds at their disposal which can only be attained through either student tuition or some other form of fundraising. There are public prchools available which you have to test into, but it goes back to the problem you stated about standardized testing. On the private side, there are also many schools which offer full scholarships to those with the test scores available, but they have to make that money up somewhere else. When it comes right down to it, money rules all. If the terrible public schools had access to the same level of funds/student as many private schools, it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that the government doesn't have or supply the same level of funds for the schools they fund that the rich have available. It's a completely financial issue that I don't think will be resolved any time soon.

At the top end of the spectrum, the best known private schools can afford to open up a larger proportion of their seats to students who cannot pay the full price but deserve to be there on merit. The top private universities do this. Some proportion of the student body pays full price but a significant amount do not. The rest of the funds are also bolstered by endowments (few high schools have this) or donations. In the high school case, government subsidies could also help in that regard.

At the mid-tier level, I think the issue is one with distribution of money and being more efficient with it. Education was not a federal enterprise until the '80s - the states and local governments had a lot more say in education and how to use the money they had. Don't get me wrong - a really large part of school funding does come from local and state taxes, but the states now have less say in how to run their schools more efficiently and have to follow federal standards like the incredibly stupid and ineffective Common Core.

Finances are a problem, but if we run the whole damn system better, finances need not be such a huge problem.
 
Top