<p>
[quote]
Also when about 30 kids in the country get a 15 each year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I should consider having realistic expectations?! Planning to score a 15 on any section of the MCAT is silly?! BDM, you should know better than that!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now I realize how ridiculous it was for me to even aim for a 15 in MCAT verbal when in fact I dropped out of AP English Lit in HS LOL.. English is my weakest weakness and it's my second language. I'm already worried about the MCAT verbal, even though I'm still only a soph.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The MCAT can seem big and scary. Get over the "scary" part - it'll hold you back. MCAT is a challenge, and you can succeed.</p>
<p>Maybe those of us who've taken the MCAT and done well should start a new topic and post a blurb about what worked for us. That would probably end the bizarre idea that high schoolers or college freshmen should start studying for the MCAT.</p>
<p>15 requires a lot of luck since you can't miss very many (I'm not even sure if you can miss one on verbal and still get 15). Even if you are an expert on the section, you are likely to make mistakes just based on tiredness, lack of concentration, etc. Even the best test takers will routinely average 13-14 and if they hit a good section, they'll get 15. An even set of 12, 12, 12 scores should be competitive for just about any school in the country.</p>
<p>This is different from, say, SAT math. I was able to score 800 on every practice SAT I took (the beauty of being a mathematician's son). I don't think you can find someone who can score a 15 five straight times on any MCAT section. BDM claims someone scored a 45 (meaning they scored a 15 on three sections in a row, within the same test) but I'm don't know about that.</p>
<p>Hrm. If you look at the examinee data from 2007 (<a href="http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/combined07.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/combined07.pdf</a>) you'll see that AAMC reports that 0.0% of test takers scored 42+. It's only when you get to a score of 41 that the percentage comes up to 0.1%. I imagine that 0.1% is rounded up from a number like 0.08%, which means that out of 67828 test-takers last year, less than 67 people scored a 41. Which means that less than 67 scored a 42, less than 67 people scored a 43, etc. As I see it, it's entirely possible that last year, no one out of over 65k people scored 15-15-15.</p>
<p>It's quite possibly an urban legend. I know one Duke Med student who claimed one of his classmates (would now be... a second year resident, I think) scored a 45. So it's certainly at least second-hand information -- more likely third or fourth -- and in any case is like seven years old now.</p>
<p>I figured if someone managed a 45, there'd be some verification somewhere either by the AAMC or a med school or a news story. Heck, we know Mdapplicants is full of joke profiles and yet even on there no one has dared to record a 45 MCAT score. We know exactly how many perfect SAT scorers there are per year but I have never seen any kind of data on perfect MCAT scorers.</p>
<p>SC: I don't just mean last year. I mean like...ever.</p>
<p>Getting a 45 is too overrated. I mean heck, it's a test, and if there are tens of people out there who go in cold and score a perfect 2400 or a perfect 36, i'm sure there a few who can or do score a 45 on the MCAT, with studying or lack thereof. Think about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Scoring 2400 on the SAT is much easier than a 36 on the MCAT, much less a 45. Ask anybody who's ever taken one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seriously not doubting your credibility or knowledge, but I'm pretty sure a much higher percentage of test takers score a 36 on the MCAT than a 2400 on the SATs</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seriously not doubting your credibility or knowledge, but I'm pretty sure a much higher percentage of test takers score a 36 on the MCAT than a 2400 on the SATs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A 36 is 96th percentile. A 2400 is 99+th percentile. So, 4% more people score a 36. </p>
<p>It's hard to go by percentiles when the two test taking populations aren't similar and prepare differently. Something like 70% of the MCAT test taking population has taken a prep course. I personally studied around 8 weeks on an almost full-time basis for the MCAT. For the SAT, I took 4-5 practice tests with no studying. That was the extent of my preparation. I still scored lower on MCAT percentile wise.</p>
<p>I scored a 34 on the ACT which was 99th percentile without a second of studying. Hell the previous time I took it I stayed out until about 11:30, then argued with my mom for an hour and a half about how I should have been home earlier and still scored a 33.</p>
<p>Meanwhile I studied for almost 10 weeks for the MCAT, took 5 full length practice tests and barely scored well enough to become an instructor for Kaplan.</p>
<p>Yeah, the percentile for my MCAT score (which is, by all accounts, pretty respectable) is points lower than my percentile for SAT. You've got to remember that a fair amount of the people who scored in the top 10% on the SAT are going to go on to take the MCAT whereas not as many people who scored in the 30th% on the SAT will go on to take the MCAT.</p>
<p>*[MCAT is] based on how many questions you get right (no penalty for guessing). Simple as that. How the # correct translates into a scaled score out of 15 for each section, as I said before, depends on everyone else’s performance. If it was an easy test and everyone’s getting a large number of questions correct, then the curve will be harsher. *</p>
<p>So, is that why no gets a perfect MCAT? Is it because if there are some people who get all questions right, the curve won’t let them get a 44/45? (or maybe I’m misunderstanding). </p>
<p>Each section has its own curve, right?</p>
<p>*The most important thing is balance. If you must have an imbalance, it’s probably better to have a high verbal score. *</p>
<p>Is that because it will suggest strong ability to communicate. </p>
<p>I get the need for “balance”…but if you have imbalance, but all scores are good, is imbalance such a huge deal? I mean, if you have a 11, 11, 14 …is that “imbalance”? or if you have a 10, 10, 14? (BTW…no particular order for these scores)</p>
<p>As far as I can see, if list of Med. schools is carefully prepared with realistic expectations, any score 30+ (balanced, unbalanced) will result in at least one or more acceptances (without other hooks, like URM status or saving humanity from AIDS, just average applicant with regular EC’s and GPA=3.5+ ). I believe that the key is list of schools that matches applicant well and great advisory from pre-med advisor/ pre-med committee.</p>
<p>No, all questions right would lead to a 45. Nobody gets 45s because that’s basically impossible.</p>
<p>The main reason is that it’s broken up into three relatively independent subsections. In each section, a very small number of people get 15s. The number of people who get 15s in all three sections is… well, usually it’s zero.</p>
<p>In general, it’s slightly better to get a 12, 12, 12 than an 11, 11, 14. But that’s not a big deal.</p>
<p>The major problem would be something like a 15, 15, 6. That looks like an awesome score (a 36), but actually I think that kid would probably get rejected everywhere.</p>
<p>I would think a 10/10/14 would be acceptable. The real issue is making sure to score a 10 or higher on each section. Once you drop below a 10, and certainly below a 9, in any section of the test, you’re in real trouble, now matter what your overall score.</p>