<p>Okay, to get a better idea on "how good" a MCAT score is, can anyone compare/ connect the two scores?</p>
<p>Ex. 2400 SAT= 45 MCAT= Perfect/ impossible score</p>
<p>2300 SAT= ? MCAT= Great
2200 SAT= ? MCAT= Very good
2100 SAT= ? MCAT= Good
2000 SAT= ? MCAT= Okay</p>
<p>Well a 2200 on the SAT would put you in the 99th percentile, while a 35 on the MCAT would you put you easily in the 90th percentile. You can’t compare the two though since everyone takes the SAT and the MCAT is merely taken by those who want to go to medical school. But to put things into perspective, the average MCAT applicant score is about 26, and for those matriculating to medical school it is about 31.</p>
<p>Comparing the MCAT and SAT is very difficult. Gaining acceptance into medical school is a TOTALLY different game than gaining acceptance into college.</p>
<p>A 37-38+ MCAT would bear similar competitiveness for med school as would a 2300 for an elite undergraduate university. 34-36 similar to 2200. 31-33 similar to 2100. < 30 is not an area you would want to be (just like you would not want to be less than 2100).</p>
<p>Comparing them in terms of equivalence is doable, predicting your score based on SAT is not as wise. For example, a 32+ on the ACT places you within the range necessary for top universities. A 34+ on the MCAT would put you in that range. When I say range, however, I don’t necessarily mean that you are as likely with a 32/34 as you would be with a higher score, but you won’t get screened out for that alone. The equivalent of a 2350+/35+ ACT would be a 40+ on the MCAT. Anything over, say, a 36 has diminishing returns in terms of admission, but it can have effect on scholarships.</p>
<p>Hundreds if not thousands of students get a 2400 every year. Nobody gets a 45.</p>
<p>^ No clue about the MCAT score distribution, but under 300 students get a 2400 in every graduating class.</p>
<p>Okay. So hundreds.</p>
<p>So that means a 2400 is essentially the equivalent to a MD applicant having a 42. Ultimately, it is just an equivalent because trust me the 2400 does not promise a 42+.</p>
<p>42 seems a bit too high, don’t you think? Compared to a 2400. <–and this rebuttal proves one thing: this question of comparing MCAT & SAT scores is unanswerable. </p>
<p>This question has come up in threads on numerous occasions. The final result of all of them is this: inconclusive. Comparing MCAT scores with SAT is much too different. With colleges, SAT is SO largely influential, it could be analogous to a monopolistic company; on the other hand the MCAT is very influential as well but it can never replace all the other just as important factors in a med school application such as EC’s, research, life experience, job experience, internships, etc. I mean, if you even just decide to sit down and go through an entire AMCAS application, you’ll know that acceptance into medical school is WAY different than acceptance into college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. So keep speculating away…</p>
<p>I am comparing the equivalence. In terms of rarity and value a 42 is about at the same place as a 2400, even when you factor in the more competitive test taking pool. Getting a 2400 does not mean I think you will get a 42, but I think that the value for the respective admissions pool is the same.</p>
<p>OP, the [med</a> school spreadsheet](<a href=“The Legendary Med School Spreadsheet Application | Student Doctor Network”>The Legendary Med School Spreadsheet Application | Student Doctor Network) will give you equivalent scores on the MCATEst spreadsheet. Research shows that there is a 1 SD difference between MCAT & GRE test takers and ACT & SAT test takers, so the 50th percentile of the MCAT is about the 84th on the ACT or SAT. A perfect SAT would be equivalent to a 38 on the MCAT and a perfect ACT would be equivalent to a 43 on the MCAT. A 2000 on the SAT would be equivalent to a 29 on the MCAT.</p>
<p>^ Why would a perfect ACT compare to a much higher MCAT score than a perfect SAT? A perfect ACT is more common than a perfect SAT.</p>
<p>mmmcdowe, I have to disagree with this. If you score within the general range for your target school, you have passed a threshold after which other factors will usually bear a stronger influence on your application. The SAT is much more linear than the MCAT. The MCAT is much more of a ‘threshold’ test. If you get above a certain score, which is usually that school’s average, you are usually fine. This is true because multiple research studies (of which all medical schools are aware) have demonstrated that there is no correlation between extremely high MCAT scores and being a good doctor. And this is why I say 42 is too high compared to a 2400, because a 2400 is looked upon as almost a keeper, while a 42 is looked upon as simply being above the average (matriculant) and surpassing the “requirements.” For example (making this up), say the average matriculant to Harvard was a 37; getting a 42 would place you way above the average matriculant at Harvard and the moment the score surpasses what Harvard is looking for in the MCAT scores, they begin looking at other qualities.</p>
<p>EH, I think you are mistaken. While a student with a 44 is not shown to be a better doctor than a student with a 40, I would argue that a student with a 2400 is not likely to be a better student than one with a 2350. The edges of any standardized test tend to be fuzzed over with chance. If you think that schools don’t value a 42 over a 36, which is the average or higher than average for every school except WashU, you are not familiar enough with the process. Statistically, a 42 is only a few percentile points above a 36, but it not only demonstrates that you are an excellent test taker (and don’t think schools don’t care about Step 1 scores), it gives them the ability to consider taking students that may in turn lower their average. These students may have a less than desirable MCAT score but other very desirable qualities. You might want to try to argue that this is speculation on my part, but I assure you admissions committees do game it that way. Top schools, especially, SET what they want their MCAT and GPA to be on average. Any top 10 school who wanted to bump it up another point or two could, but this means sacrificing desirable candidates outside of grades and scores for students who perhaps have the scores but are more uni-dimensional. I guarantee you that an applicant with a 42 is much more likely to get full scholarships from top 20 programs than the same applicant with a 36. A 42 is most definitely a keeper in the same sense that a 2400 is. The difference, however, is the fact that you are much less likely to find a 2400 with a crappy GPA or poor writing skills or poor application. This is because of the fact that almost everyone takes the SAT while in high school. The MCAT, however, can be taken when you are good and ready. Many non traditional applicants with sub par GPAs come back 5-10 years later and nail the MCAT. Further, the SAT is also a threshold exam. Being above average of a given school means that your application’s other aspects are more likely to be scrutinized, but in neither case does that mean it is any less desirable to have as high a score as possible. Trust me, 1/4 of my class is from Harvard and they did not get to Harvard University with just a 4.0 and a 2400. If you don’t believe me, withhold judgment until you’ve gone through the medical application process.</p>
<p>Anyways, I pulled 42 out of my head by eyeballing it. It is very likely that it may be a bit lower to be equivalent to a 2400 (some schools, for example, consider anything above a 13 in a given section to be a 15), but it is most certainly not right at or above the average of a given school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Jersey pointed out, that doesn’t make any sense. Although the SAT test-taking population is more competitive on average than the ACT test-taking population, there are more than twice as many perfect scorers on the ACT. Having earned perfect scores on both, I can also offer that getting 36 on the ACT felt much easier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are people who consistently get perfects.</p>
<p>Which, nonetheless, does not disprove my point.</p>
<p>I still can’t agree with you, and still maintain that the MCAT is more of a threshold test and the SAT is much more linear. Let’s just conclude, arguendo, that this is not determinable - the two are not comparable. However, I would like to just point one thing out.
But so is a 39, so we must find the glass floor where the two (ranges) are relatively separate.</p>
<p>I think you are splitting hairs. I could say that a 2399 or whatever the next lowest score is also a keeper. There is no “cut off”, every point is valuable on both tests. There are certainly diminishing returns after a point, but that point varies significantly among medical schools. In terms of where that diminishing returns begins, I would say 35+ (top 5 percent or so) is where one is increasingly less likely to be rejected on the basis of score. 38 is where once is likely to begin to get offers of large scholarships at the top group of institutions (assuming everything else is in order), though plenty of people get them with lower scores. Anything above a 40 is essentially equivalent, most certainly 42-44. The reason is because once you hit that point, and often sooner, you are literally talking about getting one question wrong per point and you are talking about only a few students achieving that level per test.</p>
<p>The tests are most certainly comparable in terms of their value in admissions, but that doesn’t mean that they are equal in value to a given admissions level. I don’t agree that the SAT is more linear than the MCAT, I think they both have a point of diminishing returns that is proportional to the application pool and number of institutions utilizing the standard. What I will agree with is the level of value of standardized tests is different between medical and undergraduate admissions and so in this way you might see a given difference in SAT percentile rank being more important relative to the MCAT change in percentile rank, but ultimately there is still a drop off on the SAT on how important an increase in score is (I never took the new SAT, but it seems to me to be around 2300-2350). I think this is the nature of the SAT versus the MCAT. In the SAT pool, students are enormously variable in their interests, talents, and goals. It makes it harder to assign value to such things. In medical admissions, there are certain values that are more widely adhered to and thus it is easier to assign value to things outside of scores even if there still is quite a bit of diversity. They both are there to provide as objective as possible look at a students academic preparation and talent. You are welcome to your opinions but maybe some other medical students or perhaps an admissions committee officer will chime in with their opinions later.</p>
<p>The opinion that I am stating is that of a previous medical student at USC that is now one of Stanford’s medical school teachers.</p>