Talk:Medical College Admission Test

MCAT 2015 Changes

I would also like to mention here that there should be some changes made to this article to account for the newly released information pertaining to the MCAT 2015 from the MR5 Committee. They have finalized the changes to the MCAT 2015 and this section must be updated. (This is a complete overhaul of the MCAT that adds topics from behavioral science, sociology, psychology, biochemistry, and other sciences. This is an important change that college freshmen will be facing, and is one of the greatest changes in the 80 year history of the MCAT as a standardized test for medical school admissions.) Please see http://www.aamc.org/ for more information. I would definitely be willing to author the new information, especially since I've recently released a publication with this information in it. --IsaacD (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have the knowledge and sources, then certainly feel free to edit the article appropriately. I would tread quite carefully on linking to any publication you are a part of, just because of the inherent WP:COI implications. Cheers! Transmissionelement (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Prep Sources - WikiPremed

I added a blurb about WikiPremed to the sentence mentioning preparation resources. However, I don't know much about the MCAT, so I thought it might be good to admit that here, so that someone with more expertise can verify the site (if needed). Also, long live free knowledge! 76.115.3.200 (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Double standard There seems to be a double standard regarding listing MCAT prep sites. The two listed already, although not selling anything, do ask for donations. I have tried adding <a href=http://mcatprep.yolasite.com/>MCAT Prep</a>, a site with a wealth of free prep materials and only asks a nominal amount for full practice tests, etc., is deemed "advertising' of a "commercial site." I suppose, it could ask for donations instead. I believe readers would benefit much, much more by knowing about this site than not knowing about it. In any case, if MCAT Prep is not allowed, neither should the two other sites. Mcatest (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I reviewed the other two sites and one was a dead link, and so I removed it. The other site seems to be a third-party site owned by a LLC and asking for a donation. After a search, I removed it as non-notable. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is John Wetzel at <a href=http://wikipremed.com/>WikiPremed</a>. For the record I did not originally put the link to WikiPremed into the article, so it was not advertising, although I was very gratified when I saw it. I agree with Mcatest that his site should have also been permitted here as well as WikiPremed because Mcatest has a wealth of free resources for preparation as well. In this field both my site and MCAT Prep ARE notable. They are the only two websites where students can get significant help specific to this test without spending any money (now that MCAT Pearls is gone), and if having commerce attached in any way to an outbound link from WikiPedia is a disqualification then 90% of the links in the encyclopedia need to go (although if profit were the primary motive at WikiPremed then I am the worst business person in the history of business). Readers of this article definitely would benefit to having links to both sites present. The criteria should be whether a link is notable within its field and whether the link is a positive benefit to the reader, and this definitely applies for both of our websites. All the best. Wisebridge (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Wisebridge

Thanks for the info on your site. I certainly have no objection to those sites being included, if we can show notability per Wikipedia standards. Is there media or significant press coverage that we could use as reliable sources? That would prove notability and justify inclusion. Thanks, Transmissionelement (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Please forgive me, though, if I ask you to please bear in mind what we are talking about here, which is test preparation assistance for a population of students that numbers in just the tens of thousands (40,000 applicants). Frankly there isn't much media attention on the topic, though even if there were media attention, please forgive me for saying I think the standard of notability you are applying here isn't the right one to begin with. I think the standard for an article content is not the same as article topics. I've pasted an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on notability-

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight.

Nevertheless, as an effort to establish independent confirmation, here are a few examples of site reviews from around the web which I have noticed from inbound traffic. <a href=http://quazen.com/kids-and-teens/college-life/best-free-mcat-study-materials/>Link</a> and <a href=http://www.squidoo(dot)com/studyforthemcatchemistry>Link</a>, and here you will find some very kind words from the most prominent chemistry professor on the web, Dr. Steven Lower: <a href=http://www.chem1.com/chemed/courses.shtml>Link</a> and here is a guest post I was recently invited to write at a well-trafficked medical student blog. <a href=http://scrubnotes.blogspot.com/2009/10/basic-science-medical-education-dilemma.html</a>. Although WikiPremed isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, in our little area, MCAT Preparation, WikiPremed is the best site on the web both in substance and in being completely open access. There are fifteen years of work in the site, and it's not like there are fifty sites like WikiPremed and MCAT Prep, which provide substantial assistance for MCAT preparation in this way. We are basically the open access wing, and this does not mean inferior. (although there used to be a pretty good site called MCAT Pearls, which is no longer active, and there is also <a href=http://mymcat.com/wiki/Main_Page>My MCAT</a> which has some promise if that group can stick with it). Cheers.Wisebridge (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Wisebridge

A fair point and I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that means that any website asserted to be important then belongs in an article, especially as this is just a prep site and not a website adding directly to the content of the article. If websites are going to be listed in an article, they should have some degree of relevance and importance. Otherwise, we eventually end up with a directory of sites. As for whether or not prep sites should be listed in an article, as far as I can tell, most other test articles have determined that they should not.

As I know virtually nothing about the MCAT, I won't question your assertion that the site is the best MCAT site on web, but I'd prefer to see that assertion (and resulting inclusion) supported by some reliable sources or a consensus, and not on traffic from Squidoo pages or blogs. Nevertheless, it is an interesting point, and perhaps some other editors could look at the issue and weigh in. That would help, especially as there is a conflict of interest present in this discussion. Regardless, I appreciate your civility in discussing this matter. Transmissionelement (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the care you are taking in this. However, I do not agree that a conflict of interest is necessarily present in the discussion. Sure I would like mention of WikiPremed to return to the article, but I would not plead the case if I felt it were not appropriate. In tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, dealing with diverse issues, the products of for-profit and non-profit organizations are mentioned, open source or not, when such information would satisfy readers who are often researching for just that information. In the case of an article on the MCAT, the vast majority of readers are students trying to learn more about how to prepare for this exam. To assist these students there are Kaplan, Princeton Review, ExamKrackers (in some places), and Berkeley Review (in California) as live courses and Gold Standard & Flowers online. That's about it. As far as the gift economy is concerned, there is MCAT Prep and then there is WikiPremed, my own site. No knowledgeable editor who spent more than fifteen minutes at WikiPremed could argue that it would not belong in this group, although it would take the editor five months at twenty hours per week to fully understand why it is the most superior. My own hope is that an editor with knowledge of the MCAT will add a paragraph describing the actual world of MCAT preparation, and that it will include WikiPremed. That would make me happy, of course, not because of the twenty visitors a day, but because of pure reason. MCAT preparation is not such a huge field that such an article could turn into a circus, but if you guys decide that this type of paragraph does not belong in the article, then I will be happy anyway. Thanks for a good discussion. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.253.23 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I would say that there is an inherent conflict of interest just because you run the site and benefit from the twenty visitors a day of traffic coming from Wikipedia. Regardless, the more interesting point is whether a roundup of prep sites is something that should be included in the article. As I mentioned earlier, in other test articles I have reviewed those listings are not present, and the general discussion seems to indicate that those sites should not be included. As you rightly point out, however, it would be helpful for some experienced editors to comment on the issue. Let's see if anyone weighs over the next week, and then revisit the issue. Agreed? Regards, Transmissionelement (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your point about conflict of interest would be true if I had ever edited the article, but, as I mentioned, I am not an editor of the article. This may be my own interpretation, but I think the conflict of interest standard was created with regard to the editing of articles. I had nothing to do with placing the original link, and because of conflict of interest, I know implicitly this would be wrong. It was the 'long live free knowledge' fellow above, who put the link in back in July. Thank you! So I don't believe conflict of interest is relevant to this discussion, not only because this is not an article, but a discussion, and because it because my own personal stake in outcomes is open for weighing along with the other dimensions of my arguments. I have been completely open, so the essential aspect of conflict of interest is missing, which is that one of the interests is hidden or repressed. Regarding the second point, which may actually not be more interesting, but perhaps more salient, I hope the editors will consider expanding the paragraph describing the manner of preparation for the MCAT to describe the state of the profession. It's a huge exam and the people who work in the area deserve more than the moniker 'test prep' or whatever. We are a very small, intense group of science teachers specialized in the global review of the entire undergraduate basic science curriculum. There are some really good people at Kaplan, TPR, ExamKrackers and elsewhere and we deserve a bit of recognition in the article for doing a heck of a lot of work getting tomorrows doctors ready to handle medical school. Well, I'll leave it at that. However this ultimately works out, I want to thank you for putting in time here at Wikipedia and taking good care. I've done a lot of minor editing of science articles, but not so much compared to many, and this encyclopedia is a great achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.150.130 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me apologize if it appeared I was saying that you had acted in an inappropriate manner. I was in no way implying that, and I believe that you have been forthright and open about your involvement in the site, and that is much appreciated. That stated, please let me clarify: what I was saying is that there is a inherent potential for a COI based on the fact that you have a close relationship with the site, and are obviously interested in having the site appear in Wikipedia due to the fact that you derive traffic therefrom. Regardless of whether you have been open--and I agree you have--I believe the issue is present. Regardless, let's set that point aside because to me the other point is more interesting, and I agree that it is more salient. I'll be interested in seeing others weigh in on that. Again, thanks Transmissionelement (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

References

There

There has never been 45 perfect score. Is this true?

There have been perfect scores. But i'm not sure of 45T, but I know my old prep-teacher got a 45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.211.64 (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect scores

There are occasionally perfect scores of 45 on the MCAT; a 45T is quite uncommon. The percentile-rank tables show 0.0% for scores of 45, but only because the number rounds to 0%. --Ellen 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the verbal section until a few years ago had a maximum of 13-15, so the top score was 43-45. --Christopherlin 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RuveneCo/MCAT-prep.com

RuveneCo/MCAT-prep.com was just created today, less than an hour after linking from MCAT. These are the sole contributions from 70.80.55.223 and Poplowski. I've left a note on user's talk page with a reference to WP:CORP, WP:NOT, and here. --Christopherlin 19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats true

On a related note, I find it extremely difficult to believe that about half of the people who take the MCAT spend an average of 1500 - 2000 dollars through companies other than universities to prepare. That seems completely false, and some weird advertising spin gone horribly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.175.99 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the unsourced information. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Essay scores

Essays are actually read by two graders, so the score scale is 4-24, not 2-12; more importantly, the AAMC has said that a score of 4 represents "competency," for lack of a better word, but nowhere do they state what percentage of essays receive scores of 4 or higher. Stismail 02:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to this sentence: "Each essay is graded from 1 to 6 points by each of two readers, yielding a total score of 4-24; this score is then converted to a letter scale (4 = J, 24 = T)." How do we know this? What's the attribution? XKL 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather sure I also read that in a Kaplan review book once upon a time. Unfortunately, I don't have the text around me to cite. Exigence 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some info on how a computer (the second grader) can grade an essay?? Couldn't this information be exploited? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit Tag

This article has an inconsistent style and tone.

• "Interestingly, there is no penalty for wrong multiple choice answers, and thus even random guessing is preferable to leaving an answer choice blank (unlike, for example, the SAT)." in the Overview: Why is this interesting?

I got a minor in statistics and can answer this. Say two testers have identical knowledge and preparation for the exam and have identical brains. Lets say they both are totally unsure of 12 questions and there are 4 answers to chose from in a multiple choice. Ideally, they would score 3 correct guesses out of the 12. Both the test-taker and the medical colleges reviewing an applicants score would like to eliminate the variance which could result from one of the twin's using a better "guessing method" like christmas-treeing vs using the clock method (1-15 seconds mark A, 16-30 seconds mark B, 31-45 seconds mark C, 46-60 seconds mark D). Since the MCAT score depends heavily on marginal scoring, the variance is a source of MCAT error. Ideally the test-takers and the reviewing party would rather plead no-contest on the 12-questions and just "bargain" to have 3 of the 12 scored correct, and 9 of the 12 scored incorrect. Rather than take the chance of getting 10, 11, or all 12 guesses wrong when each guess is at most a 75% chance of getting wrong.

• "Scores for the writing section range from J to T" in the Overview: What do J and T stand for? Which one is the high end and which the low?

This is the same reason that the LSAT ranges from 120-180, why not 0-100? Arbitrary ranges are less hurtful. T is the high end.

• "Surprisingly, it is the VR score which most directly correlates to success on the USMLE Step I exam." in the Overview: Why is this surprising?

Source?

• "Each essay is graded from 1 to 6 points by each of two readers, yielding a total score of 4-24" in Exam Administration: This sentence is just plain confusing.

The score of 1-6 includes half-increments, like a 3.5, so you have to double the score at either this step, or the final step, to get rid of the possibility of half-increments. e.g. if one grader gives a 3.5 and the other one a 4.0, then the 7.5 score can get rid of the .5 by doubling to 15.

• The Preparation subdivision mentions a table in the third paragraph but none is present. Was it mistakenly deleted by someone? I cannot find it in the recent history edits.

Karma Thief 05:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Source?

Test Takers

As someone not from the U.S., this might seem like a trivial question, but who takes the MCAT? High-school students? Undergrads? Maybe someone who knows should add this to the article! — Manticore 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article states that it's taken by prospective medical students. It's usually taken in the Junior Year of college and repeated if needed. I suppose we could add that it's "often taken by College Juniors" but I'm not sure where it should go. Any ideas or suggestions as to if it's actually needed? --Robert Stone, Jr. 09:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Many do take it just after junior year, many others after graduating. Some people take it after sophomore year if they have finished the requisite courses in biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, and physics. Also, there are those prodigies that can and do straight from high school to a medical college, after taking and passing the MCAT. Of course, this is rare, but tis true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal reasoning

If you want to claim that verbal reasoning correlates most with USMLE Step I scores please provide a peer reviewed reference that supports your claim. If you cannot provide such a source then do not make any claims to the contrary. As of now two references cited support the fact that BS scores correlate the most with USMLE Step 1.

History section?

This is an encyclopedia entry, right? Currently it's basically a basic "what do you need to know about the MCAT if you're applying to medical school" page. Shouldn't we add at least a history section? I'd be happy to take a crack at that, but only if there is some support for the idea. Comments? XKL 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it: go for it. SarahLawrence Scott 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm all for it as well; it'd be nice to get a historical context of the MCAT, especially how the test format has changed over the years i.e. the new CBT versus the old paper exam. There have been oversights on the exams as well, such as the January 27th verbal reasoning glitch that mismatched a passage and a set of questions. If you know MCAT history, then go fo it!

Let me be the 4th vote--Go for it! Include that it used to be paper-based.

Vantage addition

An anonymous contributor whose IP address is associated with Vantage added this: "The first reader is Intellimetric, a proprietary computer program developed by Vantage Learning, which analyses creative writing and syntax. The second and third readers are humans, who generally look at the overall impact rather than spelling and grammar." Should this be included without attribution? The comments include this link: [1] but 1) that isn't available as part of the article and 2) doesn't include the specifics mentioned (about 2 human readers and what they'll be judging). Should it be removed until supporting information is available (from MCAT, Prometric or Vantage, presumably)? XKL 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Price

It'd be nice if the current and even past prices for the exam are included.--205.133.240.254 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mean Score?

The Standard Deviation is listed. I was thinking it'd make sense to have the mean also. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgyrun3 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on average score

There appears to be a number of IP editors consistently changing the mean score to very wrong values. The official data is here: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/2008mcatgpa.htm. Eb.eric (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the article the mean for applicants was 39.1 and for matriculants 39.2. According to the link you just posted, those numbers should be 28.1 and 30.9. What is the dispute? 68.23.84.235 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)