Verbal Reasoning Predictor of Success

[Dingalongdong]

I'm starting this new thread for the "hot hot" topic of verbal reasoning's predictor of success in medical school. I find it shameful that people would consider Queen's to have discriminatory admitance policies. It is nothing more the bitter remarks of a few students who for one reason or another, were not accepted into Queen's medicine.

 

I'd like to put an end to the aforementioned thread and continue the invaluable discussion of verbal reasoning here.

Sincerely,

D (Queen's Medicine 2010)

[Kuantum]

I had been getting 10/11 (almost 12s on verbal). I spent the entire summer practicing verbal and about 2-3 weeks studying the sciences. I did the practice essays kaplan simulated. On the real thing I got 13PS 6VR 12BS S (31S). I don't know what happened with verbal reasoning but I am re-writing in January. Even though it would appear I suck at verbal, and even if I did, I don't think it means I won't make a good physician or be able to handle the academic/critical thinking aspect of it. MCAT, I think is a crock and the fact that I did well on the other sections and poorly on verbal I think proves nothing about my suitability as a physician.

[everyoneloveschem]

I read a journal article somewhere that found a relationship between VR scores and tendency towards psychiatry.

 

Aren't they focusing on VR because there IS a correlation between VR scores and success at licensing exams? I can't imagine they would re-do their entire admissions policy on a whim.

 

I did well on VR, but didn't end up using it (at UofO now), so I'm sort/sort of not biased.

[Kuantum]

I read a journal article somewhere that found a relationship between VR scores and tendency towards psychiatry.

 

Aren't they focusing on VR because there IS a correlation between VR scores and success at licensing exams? I can't imagine they would re-do their entire admissions policy on a whim.

 

I did well on VR, but didn't end up using it (at UofO now), so I'm sort/sort of not biased.

 

Correlation does not imply causality.

[peachy]

Correlation does not imply causality.

I'd be the first to agree with you, except that I don't see why that is relevant here. Med schools aren't interested in causation - they don't care whether med students with high verbal grades, on average, do better because they speak English better, because they have better critical thinking skills, or because they happen to test well under pressure. They are using it expressly for the purpose of correlation: finding an accurate way to identify those students who will eventually do better, on average, on later exams.

[Kuantum]

I'd be the first to agree with you, except that I don't see why that is relevant here. Med schools aren't interested in causation - they don't care whether med students with high verbal grades, on average, do better because they speak English better, because they have better critical thinking skills, or because they happen to test well under pressure. They are using it expressly for the purpose of correlation: finding an accurate way to identify those students who will eventually do better, on average, on later exams.

 

Don't you consider that to be a problem? If admissions committees aren't finding the causes that will produce good medical students/physicians, how can they be sure that the admissions process is actually working. I'm not trying to dismiss the entire process because medical schools do produce many qualified doctors each year (and unavoidably, some not-so-qualified doctors), so they must be doing something right. However, if verbal reasoning is used just as a mere correlation, why can't we say that since the vast majority of physicians are probably right-handed then we should favour them in choosing the best students or since surgeons tend to be taller on average, we should actively seek taller males because they will probably make good surgeons. Extreme examples, obviously, but I'm sure you understand the point I am trying to make.

[Dingalongdong]

It is not used as a mere correlation, it is a test of how well you can read, think critically, absorb information and handle stress. Don't you think that these are important qualities for a successful medical career?

[Kuantum]

Sure they are, but you don't experience those sort of things in this type of context. There may be a correlation, but it might be in relation to something else. That something else may also correlate with success as a future physician, however, because you are not obtaining the directly cause, you may be missing something else with a stronger correlation that also reveals causality. There are other ways to test suitability as a physician.

 

I once saw someone's profile who got 13VR 8PS 8BS WS R. That person appears to be weak in the application of basic science. What would you read from this based on what you have said? that this person will likely make a better doc than say someone who scored 14PS 9VR 13BS? It doesn't make sense. Also, the second MCAT score was not made up either.

[The_B]

I love this debate, because it never goes anywhere.

 

IMO, everything on the MCAT has merit in that it is a standardized test. Any potential medical student/doctor is going to need proficiency in all areas tested in the MCAT. Since there are so many applicants every year, I believe it is appropriate to give them all the same test and use that as a means of setting cutoffs. There are no more “fair” ways of doing so, hence my belief in its use.

[Dingalongdong]

I agree with B. I'm never said that the VR score is the final determinant as to whether one will have a successful medical career. It is only one of the many ways that med admissions evaluates their applicants. True Kuantum, if the VR + WS were the final determinants then people ought to do their undergraduate studies in arts.

 

A much more useful debate question would be "Be it resolved that cutoffs are unfair."

[Darla]

A much more useful debate question would be "Be it resolved that cutoffs are unfair."

 

I'm not sure I agree with that either. I was justshut out of Queens with a 31 overall but I feel ok with this. If it wasn't for this sort of weeding process, finding potential candidates would be a terrible task for the adcoms.

If they had dropped the MCAT to 31 and let my application through the adcom doors, who's to say that they wouldn't start requiring x number of ec hours per week.

The entire process of applying to med schools seems to be a quest to jump through arbitrary but flaming hoops with the hope of getting a glimpse of an interview. This is an (unfortunate) reality of the pursuit to be an MD-just like the inevitable debt we incurr in the process.

 

But I've been writing argument essays all day for English

[Smurfette]

There are other ways to test suitability as a physician.

 

The VR certainly isn't the be all and the end all. There are definitely other ways to test suitability as a physician. That's why no school that I know of ONLY looks at the VR. Most schools looks at some combination of VR, other MCAT scores, GPA, EC's, interviews, etc.

 

I once saw someone's profile who got 13VR 8PS 8BS WS R. That person appears to be weak in the application of basic science. What would you read from this based on what you have said? that this person will likely make a better doc than say someone who scored 14PS 9VR 13BS?

 

No, I wouldn't say that the first person would make a better doctor than the first. You're absolutely right. Without looking at the individual numbers, the first person has a score of 29, the second has a score of 36. You're comparing apples and oranges. It would be more interesting to ask whether you would prefer an applicant with 31 with individual scores of (13VR 10BS 8PS) or (8VR 10BS 13PS). In that case, I might choose the first over the second.

 

It's just that the admissions committee has to have some way of distinguishing between applicants and some way of telling who has good verbal skills. It sucks to be the person just shut out of the cutoffs. And for many people those cutoffs happen to be the VR. It doesn't mean that if you got a 9 in VR, you won't make a good doctor. Or that you'll make a worse doctor than you friend Joe who got a 10. But a school has to distinguish who's more likely to make a good doctor. And a class of people with 10 on the VR is more likely (statistically) than a class of people with 9 on the VR to end up doing well. Fortunately, the MCAT is something you can just write again if you didn't do as well as you'd hoped. It's not fun to re-write the test, but it's just one of those things that happen. I had to re-write the MCAT for my WS mark. I wasted an extra summer, etc. And yes, I was a little bitter about it, but that's life.

[The_B]

 

It's just that the admissions committee has to have some way of distinguishing between applicants and some way of telling who has good verbal skills. It sucks to be the person just shut out of the cutoffs. And for many people those cutoffs happen to be the VR. It doesn't mean that if you got a 9 in VR, you won't make a good doctor. Or that you'll make a worse doctor than you friend Joe who got a 10. But a school has to distinguish who's more likely to make a good doctor. And a class of people with 10 on the VR is more likely (statistically) than a class of people with 9 on the VR to end up doing well. Fortunately, the MCAT is something you can just write again if you didn't do as well as you'd hoped. It's not fun to re-write the test, but it's just one of those things that happen. I had to re-write the MCAT for my WS mark. I wasted an extra summer, etc. And yes, I was a little bitter about it, but that's life.

 

Thats exactly how I see it as well. It would be great if admissions could give everyone a 3hr interview to truly try to gauge whether one can be a good doctor, but this isn't practical. They need to narrow the large applicant pool as much as possible before their one hour interviews are even given. MCAT is just one of those measures. And as I stated before, the only standardized one.

[Dingalongdong]

Also one shouldn't feel bitter if one gets shut out by narrowly missing a single cutoff. Queen's has a very rigorous preinterview assessment criteria, so you still have a fair chance at one of the other fine medical education institutions in Canada. Also, nobody said that you can't take the test again... So what if it takes you another year to get in? Big deal, that's just another year for you to further your education, expand your extracurriculars and make yourself a better applicant. I'm sure that by age 40 looking back on your wonderful and fullfilling medical career, you won't be thinking: "Damn, if only I had gotten in 1 year sooner. Curse the VR!"

g'luck to all

D

[Kuantum]

Also one shouldn't feel bitter if one gets shut out by narrowly missing a single cutoff. Queen's has a very rigorous preinterview assessment criteria, so you still have a fair chance at one of the other fine medical education institutions in Canada. Also, nobody said that you can't take the test again... So what if it takes you another year to get in? Big deal, that's just another year for you to further your education, expand your extracurriculars and make yourself a better applicant. I'm sure that by age 40 looking back on your wonderful and fullfilling medical career, you won't be thinking: "Damn, if only I had gotten in 1 year sooner. Curse the VR!"

g'luck to all

D

 

I'm not bitter that I missed the cut-off. Also, I just didn't miss it, from where I was it, that line is a dot (6VR). Ever since I started learning about the MCAT and how it was used, I've never really had faith in it. It doesn't test your ability for the skills they say are necessary for medicine. Also, it just isn't verbal I think is bogus, its the entire test.

[bumblebee]

Let's face it, medical school admission is a crap shooot. Many qualified, fabulous applicants get rejected. Some unqualified, hideous applicants get in. The admissions process is designed to select from thousands of candidates that are probably equally capable of becoming physicians. Unfortunately, you have to play the game and the MCAT is but one hoop you need to jump through. We could argue about the usefulness of standardized testing, but the same could be argued about GPA. Is a person with a 3.8 substantially more capable than someone with a 3.6? These are just surrogate measures of suitability. Different programs will suit different applicants. Find one that works for you. If you didn't score highly on the MCAT, aim for one of the non-MCAT schools or write the MCAT again. Perseverance is highly rewarded in the game of admissions (and in medical school). It shows strength of character and a willingness to accept flaws and to strive for improvement.

[Kuantum]

I think you may also be missing my message. I understand what you are saying and wholeheartedly agree - medicine can be a crapshoot and it is difficult. However, I just think there are better ways and that needs to be recognized. However, its not entirely. A standardized test like the MCAT selects for people who are good at standardized tests and it helps contribute to the number of actually unqualified applicants getting through. Now, there is no evidence proving this, however, I think any reasonable person can say its certainly a flaw when it comes to standardized testing. Also, is a person with a 3.8 more capable than someone with a 3.6? Well, that's a hard question to ask and I don't think one should ever suggest to rely solely on GPA as an indication. However, a person who has a 4.0, I would say is likely more capable than someone with a 3.6 entirely because of the commitment and dedication required to maintain an average like that. Different programs suit different applicants, but as a whole, there aren't major differences between programs, especially in Canada. Sure, McMaster may be purely PBL, but that's an exception. Most schools have incorporated PBL into their curriculum, just not to the extent McMaster has.

 

Perseverance is highly rewareded in most situations, however, I think this statement is irrelevant to this particular topic because we seem to be discussing the validity of the MCAT. At least that's what I'm discussing.

 

You make good points that true. However, I don't think medical admission is a crap shoot. There is luck involved, however, I think there are ways to minimize that, hopefully eliminate it.

[Dingalongdong]

However, I just think there are better ways and that needs to be recognized. However, its not entirely. A standardized test like the MCAT selects for people who are good at standardized tests and it helps contribute to the number of actually unqualified applicants getting through.

 

Can you suggest any of these better ways? The only way that I can think of is to take the entire applicant's application into account. That way a student w/ a 38O + 3.9 GPA + excellent personal criteria is not declined an interview. Would you be in favor of such a system at Queen's?

[Kuantum]

Taking the entire application as a whole is probably the best way, and I think most people would agree with me. However, the immediate and most obvious problem associated with this is the amount of time required to analyze all of those applications. Admissions committees are busy and going through thousands of applications to see who deserves an interview would be extremely time consuming. However, does time consuming mean inefficient and unpractical? Not necessarily. The University of Toronto generally does a good job of that, however, I would even go to say that the emphasis they place on GPA may actually filter out qualified students. However, Toronto could respond by saying that they don't have actual cut-offs, just suggested minimums and people extremely qualified in other areas can still be accepted even if they fall below the cut-offs. Take verbal reasoning, for example. U of T states that 9s are the minimums, however, someone or some people in 2006 was accepted with a 6 and someone in 2005 was accepted with a 5. I am assuming this isn't a common occurence, however, it is reasonable to say that just because this person has this one little blemish on their application is not to say that they are unqualified for the study and practice of medicine.

 

The best way, in my mind, would be to consider everything the application has to offer and decide who receives an interview at that point. Sure, the pre-interview procedure may take some time, however, the number of applicants interviewed will be substantially reduced because you have already picked what is to be considered the best "overall" applicants. The interview should be used as a time to test for skills that could not be evaluated through the written application and to find out more about the student for the admissions committee, and the students can learn more about the school. The interview process should be used as a way to determine whether the student and the medical school will be a good match and if the student is likely to have future success in medicine.

 

This interview process is where a great deal of subjectivity comes in. So, I think, there should be a list pre-determined questions that every single applicant will receive, and then the rest based on how the interview goes. This way, just because one person clicks with the interviewer, it doesn't exclude someone who was stuck with a person having a terrible day. The standard questions ensure there is some uncertainty removed with the interview based on the person interviewing, and the rest of the questions/conversation can be based on the performance of the student.

 

Deciding medical school admissions can be tough, however, the idea of one test on one day blowing your chances is really not fair. Everything else on the application is developed over a series of years, so why should one day have such an affect. I know writing licensing exams is also one (or multiple days, I am not sure), and the arguement can be made that we are always faced with situations where our performance on one day can have a lasting effect and that's something we need to deal with. However, because the correlation between MCAT success and future performance as a physician have been marginally correlated (don't confuse this with performance in medical school which has been somewhat correlated), it's also not perfect. So, someone who performs poorly on the MCAT could go on to become an excellent physician and someone who does well on the MCAT could go on to be a poor physician. These are speculative, however, its important to consider which is more important. Pumping out competent doctors or ensuring that every part of the person we currently are MUST meet some set and, at times, arbitrary standards.

 

Imagine the number of students who retake the MCAT because the perform poorly the first time. I am going to be one of those...wish me luck on January 27. Suppose they take the test the first time, do extremely poorly. Then they take the test 4 months later, and perform substantially better. Does this mean that within a matter of 4 months they suddenly become much more competent for medicine? Sounds a little silly, huh? Also, imagine those who got 13, 9, 13 S on Queen's scale. This would make them unsuitable for Queen's and from their view for medical school. However, imagine they were 1 point off, would you still consider them unsuitable? This is not an overtly illustrious example so it is one that can be easily imagined. I'm sure this happens often and I think there is a problem with it.

 

Case in point, people are not perfect and should not be severly penalized for little blemishes. We will all have blemishes on our life or we would not be able to possess that quality that humanizes us. Medical schools expecting their future physicians to be of high calibre is acceptable and should be championed. Medical schools expecting their future physicians to meet standards in every aspect all the time may be asking a little too much.

 

Kuantum

[bumblebee]

Just wanted to add that Queen's does not "set" the cutoff. It is based on the applicant pool for a given application cycle.

 

I'm sure you will get into medicine if you really want to. Most people do. Plenty of us struggle successfully against all kinds of obstacles greater than a 6 on VR. Suppose you have a 3.6 because you have to work to pay the rent during undergrad. On paper, you don't appear "as capable" as someone with a 3.8. But that doesn't mean you won't get in. Or that you won't be a fantastic physician. It simply means you may have to investigate other options of how to focus on your strengths and build your application. Having to re-write the MCAT is not the end of the world. It does not imply you are sub-standard or that you are not qualified for medicine. "Blowing it" does not mean your chances are ruined forever. Study. Find out how you can improve your score. Besides, there are many other facets of the application that allow you to highlight your accomplishments. And Queen's is just one school.

[The_B]

I like everything you have written Kuantum, except:

a) I don't think it's feasible for a smaller school to look at a few thousand applicants and try to determine who is the most well rounded.

 

I don't think it's fair to do so. Let me explain this one. EC's are just that, extra... what a person does above and beyond what they are required to do for advancement. If Timmy works one job 30hrs a week, and can only volunteer every other weekend, whereas Debra can play 6 different sports, and be involved with 5 different charities, who is more deserving. From what it says on paper, it's a no brainer, since the sketch will read Job X 2003- vs. a list a mile long. Personally, I believe that stuff like that should be the purpose of the interview to guage and evaluate. Who gets an interview should be something that everyone can strive for, which leads to....

 

c) Does someone who gets a 13-14-9-S deserve to go? Probably, but not more than someone who gets a 13-14-10-S. The cutoffs for each section are determined by the incoming class. There are a preset number of interview spots, and (at Queen's) to get an interview, you need to make the cut vs. you peers to move on. Also, once done, grades and MCATs are no longer considered. So the rest of your application will be considered based only on it's merit. I like this about Queen's as it allows for a democratic means of picking who gets to the interview stage, but then allows for subjective determination of who would be best suited to go on.

[Stupor]

A standardized test like the MCAT selects for people who are good at standardized tests and it helps contribute to the number of actually unqualified applicants getting through. Now, there is no evidence proving this, however, I think any reasonable person can say its certainly a flaw when it comes to standardized testing.

So because all standardized testing is flawed, the MCAT helps unqualified applicants get in? Please. Sure the MCAT is imperfect, but so is any other method of selection. It does its job, which is to give admission committees a simple but objective way to filter applicants. Past the cut-offs, which should be the sole use of the MCAT, unqualified applicants would hopefully be rejected by other tools used in admission, like the interview. Sometimes they are not, but that is not the fault of the MCAT.

 

Also, is a person with a 3.8 more capable than someone with a 3.6? Well, that's a hard question to ask and I don't think one should ever suggest to rely solely on GPA as an indication.

True enough, a score differential of 1 on the MCAT is as arbitrary and perhaps as useless as a .2 difference in GPA. It would be nice if all admission committes recognize this and have only "soft" cut-offs like the University of Toronto, which admitted someone with a MCAT verbal score of 6 (probability for good reasons) for the entrance class of 2006. However, most committees do not have this luxury and they have to draw a line somewhere to focus their limited efforts and resources. While it cannot be said for certain that someone with a verbal (or physical/biologial) score of 8 would not make as good a doctor as someone with 9, the reverse is equally uncertain. But as a general statement, those with higher MCAT scores and GPA do possess higher academic abilities, which is useful to a physician, and that is why they are used as factors in admitting students. Extraordinary applicants would not be barred from becoming doctors by these two factors - like the applicant who applied successfully to the University of Toronto with a verbal score of 6, they would find a way. If you truly deserve to get in medical school, and you work for it, you probably will. For ordinary (and by ordinary, I mean 3.4GPA/29MCAT) applicants with a very low score in one area, however, while there are no good reasons to preclude them from medical school, there are also no good reasons to admit them over those with higher scores.

 

However, I just think there are better ways and that needs to be recognized.

You make good points that true. However, I don't think medical admission is a crap shoot. There is luck involved, however, I think there are ways to minimize that, hopefully eliminate it.

Yes, GPA and the MCAT are imperfect. They are, however, useful as indications of academic abilities. To complete the picture, admission committees also use essays, autobiographies and interviews. The combination of all these factors do minimize the role of luck in admission to medical schools.

 

In this combination, instead of being a factor of luck that helps unqualified applicants get in (as you suggested), MCAT is useful as something that makes the admission process more quantitatively measurable and accountable. Take the infamous verbal portion under discussion, for exampe. All else being equal, I would prefer a doctor with a score of 12 than one with 6, because I would probably understand the first one better when I talked with him/her. But all else can never be equal, you would say. True enough, but while "all else" cannot be measured, a doctor's ability to communicate can. There do exist certain minimum capabilities (communication being a chief one) that a doctor must possess beyond knowledge and care for other. And I would go out on a limb and say that, sorry, but a 6 in verbal just might indicate a lack of such minimum capabilities.

[avenir001]

All else being equal, I would prefer a doctor with a score of 12 than one with 6, because I would probably understand the first one better when I talked with him/her. But all else can never be equal, you would say. True enough, but while "all else" cannot be measured, a doctor's ability to communicate can. There do exist certain minimum capabilities (communication being a chief one) that a doctor must possess beyond knowledge and care for other. And I would go out on a limb and say that, sorry, but a 6 in verbal just might indicate a lack of such minimum capabilities.

 

Just want to add my personal opinion on the issue...I think that if the VR section of the MCAT does in fact predict one's success as a physician, the "mechanism" is more likely to be through the superior analytical reasoning, crticial thinking, etc skills of those who score high on this section. A person's communication skills are better assessed during interviews than by their VR scores. Therefore, if I were to give preference to someone who scored 12 (vs 6) on this section, it would be because of their enhanced synaptic connections:rolleyes: which, whether present "naturally" or acquired through much practice, have enabled this individual to quickly read, understand, make a mind-map, analyze, remember, & apply information that they have just perceived in ways that the average person cannot do. My assumption would be that such an individual would take these skills into every new situation and overall would be a more successful learner/problem solver than someone without such skills.

[MCSpicerack]

hey guys...

 

say if someone got 8 on VR on the first try..and 13 on VR the second time writing...effectively jumping from 50th percentile to the 99th percentile, what does this reveal about the nature of the MCAT?

[avenir001]

It's certainly possible to improve your VR score with practice...but from my own experience and what I've heard from others, it takes a lot of practice to improve even, say, by 2 points. People who go from 8 to 13 without much effort don't come along very often...unless the person's performance the first time around, for whatever reason, did not reflect his/her ability...ie maybe they were distracted, tired, sleepy, unmotivated, etc. VR seems to be a reliable measure of whatever it is it's measuring...ie most ppl's scores are consistent over time unless they practice, practice, practice!