Test practicing your way into elites for pre-med....

mom2collegekids · June 27, 2011, 9:41am

I was reading a thread in another forum. This future pre-med student practiced for his test scores and got a very good, but not ivy-quality, score.

His goal for the summer is practice, practice, practice…hoping to get an elite quality score for admittance so he can do pre-med there.

This brings me to my question. While I know that some kids do poorly their frosh year in top colleges for a variety of reasons, I wonder how many are these kinds of kids? How many of these kids had to “super practice” or be “super tutored” to get the scores that got them in. And, once they’re in, they’re now competing with kids who barely cracked a practice book and scored perfect 36 or 2400.

I wonder how many of these super-test-studying students are really setting themselves up for failure by doing this. It’s one thing to super-study to get the score to get some scholarship at a non-elite, but to super-study and end up in a school with kids with much more natural intelligence than you have sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Believe me, I know it’s possible to super-practice to get a better score. My nephew wanted to go to an elite Mass college. His SAT scores were modest. His ACT scores were 28 & 29. My sister hired a special ACT tutor and he got a 34. Yes, he got into his elite school, but he’s pulling nearly all Bs there…and that’s with going to campus tutoring. He’s no longer pre-med.

Anyway…it just seems to me that you have to be careful what you wish for. You may practice your way into an elite with med school in your dreams, but if it means that your GPA is going to be in the 3.0 range, you would have been better off at school below the Top 20.

MiamiDAP · June 27, 2011, 10:19am

^I am not sure if college GPA depends much on UG college. I do not know much about elite schools. However, I have many examples of kids (very top and ranked #1 in prep. private HS) going to state schools for various reasons and having worked their b-ts off for ther grades their. No, these kids did not have to have tutors to get great ACT scores, they got it on a first try. HS and college (ANY one, the lowest ranked included) are so diffirent in their work load requirments. Even very top kids from private prep. schools have to make adjustments and if they do not, they are in trouble…at ANY single college (including my home town no ranked UG), at least from several examples that I know and not all of them are even pre-meds.

mom2collegekids · June 27, 2011, 10:56am

*However, I have many examples of kids (very top and ranked #1 in prep. private HS) going to state schools for various reasons and having worked their b-ts off for ther grades their. No, these kids did not have to have tutors to get great ACT scores, they got it on a first try. *

Oh, I agree that kids at mid-tier publics or mid-tier privates aren’t going to have it easy. My son works his hiney off for his straight A’s in ChemE and pre-med. He had high test scores (ACT 33, 2280 SAT (single sitting)), but not a 2350+ or ACT 35/36 - which are more top school quality. If he had super-studied or had a tutor, he probably could have achieved those. Critical Reading and similar for ACT are his weakness. His math scores were top.

My son has a lot of classmates with ACTs in the 30-33 range…and a few in the 34-36 range. If he were at a top ranked school and in his same area of study, his classmates would be largely 34-36 range kids…many who scored with minimal effort. I think that would affect his morale and how he’d do in those classes.

I am not sure if college GPA depends much on UG college.

A good number of those super-scoring kids (mostly the ones who didn’t super-study) would likely be the curve-breakers for the classes in top schools. Unless the school is known for gross grade inflation (which some are coughYalecough), there is going to be a weed-out process that will occur.

You may not consider UCLA or Cal as top schools, but those schools do serious weeding. They aren’t known to grade inflate for pre-med pre-reqs. It’s probably some unwritten rule at those schools to only give X A’s. I can’t help but think that some of those students who’ll be given B’s in Gen Chem, Bio, or OChem wouldn’t have done better elsewhere.

Over the next year, it will be interesting to hear about the grades of a UCLA-bound pre-med student that I know. He chose UCLA over a mid-tier Calif school (USan Diego). I’m concerned that he will “weed out” the first year, and that he would have a higher GPA at the mid-tier private. If that happens, I know that he’ll long regret his choice.

bluebayou · June 27, 2011, 10:57am

mom2:

I understand your point, and in general I agree with it. Pre-professional is nearly all about grades and test scores. Thus, it is statistically better for the individual to walk into the college at the top 25% than at the bottom quartile. Just too much catching up to do for the latter. (Think about taking Calc in a class of 700’s and many high AP scores vs. a class of 600’s and no/few APs.)

Note, I disagree with the title of your post. It is impossible to “test in” to an “elite”. It takes a lot more than just scores.

OTOH, as the saying goes, high scores won’t get you in, but low scores will keep you out. So, one can definitely “test out”. High scores are just a threshold to pass.

Edited to add: my kids had/have several friends at UCLA and it can be brutal. Of course, the one who found Frosh Chem “easy” had taken AP Chem (5), and a Chem course at Cornell (A). THAT, unfortunately is an example of the background of a lot of kids who are retaking the undergrad science sequences for the “easy A.” What they don’t realize is that a large # of students have the exact same background as them. It is not for those that are unprepared.

That is true at ALL colleges. It is in the science Prof’s DNA. However the curves are more lenient at Cal and UCLA than they are at Merced, which has a much lower mean gpa.

MiamiDAP · June 27, 2011, 12:09pm

mom2collegekids,
Your S will be ahead of other from elite schools, just trust me. My D. was the same and she got very good choices of Med. Schools after applying to only 8 of them…Your S. is on his way. My D. has been left out of curve many times, prof, does not want to count in the high scores in 100+ to lower everybody’s grade, it is not what extra credit points are for, it is to bring class grade up, not down. Looks like your S. has a very bright future!

bluedevilmike · June 27, 2011, 12:50pm

An elite admissions director, on visiting my high school: "Now, of course, you have to understand that this is a hypothetical example, okay? Because we almost never have the kind of information I’m about to describe, so we pick the kid with the better numbers. But that’s not ideal for us, because in an ideal world we’d do the following.

Imagine that there’s two kids. One of them absolutely kills himself to try to get straight A’s. He’s studying all hours of the night, just going crazy. The other one doesn’t study as hard. Doesn’t study nearly as hard, actually. He’s a good kid, decent, cares about school, but gets A-'s and even an occasional B+. He studies, but not all that hard and certainly not all hours of the night. Let’s say these two kids are equal in every other way.

If you think of college as a ‘reward’ for doing well in high school, then you’d think we should take the first kid. But that’s not what admissions is about. We’re looking to see which of these two kids is going to have room to keep excelling in college. The straight-A’s kid is maxed out. He’s going to keep killing himself in college, but college is harder than high school (or at least it is at most high schools), and he’s going to find himself sinking. The second kid still has room to turn it up another gear. We’re not rewarding these kids for performance, we’re betting on their futures. And if we could, we’d bet on that second kid every time.

Like I said, we almost never get that kind of information. We’d have to know that one kid worked a LOT harder, and that the second kid would in fact turn it up to second gear once he got to college. So in practice we’ll usually admit the first one – but we don’t actually want to. We’d actually prefer the second kid."

plumazul · June 27, 2011, 12:56pm

@Mom2CK,
“My son has a lot of classmates with ACTs in the 30-33 range…and a few in the 34-36 range. If he were at a top ranked school and in his same area of study, his classmates would be largely 34-36 range kids…many who scored with minimal effort. I think that would affect his morale and how he’d do in those classes.”

The difference between ~2200 and above on the SAT is mostly noise. Also, the College Board has stated that the single strongest correlation with high SAT scores is high family income. These things are certainly also true for the ACT. Once in college, that high family income is not going to be much help. Indeed, I am surrounded by top SAT scoreing students while taking honors courses, yet my lowly 2200 hasn’t stopped me from scoring at the very top of my classes.
Another consideration that weighed heavily in my decision to attend a public instead of a top twenty private, is that the privates had strict rules about what classes (and how many) you could take. Many demanded that you retake AP courses no matter what your test score. At my public I was able to continue my studies without any backtracking, and take the number of credits I felt comfortable with. These are all confounding factors that would make any conclusions about relative GPAs dubious at best.

MiamiDAP · June 27, 2011, 1:09pm

BDM,
“If you think of college as a ‘reward’ for doing well in high school” - we only thought of college as opportunity for great growth in positive direction and required step to get to Med. School. Any college that D. felt was fitting her was fine. However, she did not apply to places that we knew will not give much if any in Merit awards.
I agree that test scores difference 31 vs 35 is pretty negligible. Some people are simply better test takers. It will not always result in higher college GPA. However, hard working habits and ability to adjust fast to new higher requirements will result in high GPA, which might surpass the GPA of better testers.

plumazul · June 27, 2011, 1:17pm

@MiamiDAP, a friend of mine took the same three SAT2s that I took. She scored 160 pts higher on the SAT 1 than I did, but I scored 160 pts. higher on the SAT2s. How do you interpret such results?

MiamiDAP · June 27, 2011, 1:31pm

^Your friend is a faster reader. Here is my interpretation. Also, while you can prep. for SAT2, you cannot prep. for Verbal section of SAT, only for math, so you have only partial control over SAT, the rest is up to the way you read. Some are better textbook readers, others are better and faster test readers, others are both, and there is also some luck.

mcat2 · June 27, 2011, 1:48pm

This may be one of the reasons why top colleges seek students who achieve a lot in their non-academic ECs while also maintaining good grades in their academics. This is because achieving at anything (sport, music, etc.) at a very high level does take a lot of time (in addition to talents) away from their studying time for academics.

One kid I can think of is a math major who maintained very high GPAs in college (at least he is PBK) while he could afford to spend a lot of time producing music video together with Sam Tsui (a youTube singer, if you do not know who he is.) DS took several music theory classes with this music kid/math major. He could spend more time in the music theory classes than DS could, so it is likely he is more talented than DS as he did not need to spend so much time on academics. (But DS likely practiced more but it is his leisure-time activity, I guess.) They all took the real music theory class for music majors, which requires a lot of time for this theory class. BTW, many top kids in the music classes are NOT music majors. (This relatively demanding music theory professor was on leave doing some research at Stanford Medical School for one year. Go figure.)

UncannyCrayon · June 27, 2011, 2:04pm

“So in practice we’ll usually admit the first one – but we don’t actually want to. We’d actually prefer the second kid.”

This is why I cringe whenever I see a “I have a 2.0 at Vandy after 1 semester ohmigosh what do I do” topic.

MiamiDAP · June 27, 2011, 2:46pm

^It could be a disaster for pre-med, actually, Vandy or Harvard, or whatever, 2.0 even for first semester is very hard to recover from. In addition, 2.0 means, that no background is gained for next higher level classes. So, what is actually a purpose to go to any place and get 2.0? I am lost. I guess, having a good time is priority #1 for some people. But them, why they are asking what to do? Just continue having a grand time.

Colleges00701 · June 27, 2011, 4:45pm

Well, my school is not an elite school nor is it any ivy, but I do know kids who scored high on standardized test scores. My roommate freshman year had a 2250. He did 30 practice sat test scores before he hit is target goal. His gpa is a 3.85. One of my good friends in college, had to do 1 practice sat test everyday for 2 months during the summer b/w junior and senior year in hs. (his parents made him). He scored a 2200. His gpa is roughly a 3.8 Another one of my friends smoked a lot of weed in high school and took about 3 practice tests. He scored a 2300. His gpa is like a 3.6 but thats because he doesn’t work that hard. I only studied for the sats in about a month, and did like 10 practice tests, and I got a 2200. My gpa is roughly a 3.8.

I think college gpa has a lot to do with the amount of work you put in while you are in college, not so much how high your SAT scores were or how high your ACT score was. Now I am sure that if my friend who smokes a lot put in some effort in college, he would have a solid 3.9, but he doesn’t.

mom2collegekids · June 27, 2011, 6:05pm

The difference between ~2200 and above on the SAT is mostly noise.

Yes…if the 2200+ is the result of super-scoring, lots of practice, and taking the test multiple times…it is just noise. And the difference between a 2300-2400 is totally nothing…could just be the result of which month they took the test.

However, I do think that it is impressive when those take the test rather cold (maybe doing a few practice sections for “warm up”), don’t super-score, and don’t take it multiple times …then I think having a 2200+ is more impressive and predicts better success for college (if the person doesn’t flake).

*I disagree with the title of your post. It is impossible to “test in” to an “elite”. It takes a lot more than just scores.
*

Blue…I understand your point. I was talking about when all the “other” things are super (GPA, curriculum, rank, ECs, awards, etc)…but the test scores were too low (like my nephew).

Thus, **it is statistically better for the individual to walk into the college at the top 25% than at the bottom quartile. **Just too much catching up to do for the latter. (Think about taking Calc in a class of 700’s and many high AP scores vs. a class of 600’s and no/few APs.)

for pre-med at large publics…I would go further and say that it’s better to be in the top 10-15% for the school…which probably means that you’re in the top 25% for pre-med students.

Look at UCLA’s mid 50s… (The UCs are largely GPA driven for admittance)

SAT Critical Reading: …570 - 680
SAT Math: …600 - 740 
SAT Writing: … 580 - 710 
ACT Composite: 25 - 31

To be in the top 25% at UCLA, you’d need to have about a SAT 2130 (and I imagine that the top 25% who are pre-med have higher stats).

Edited to add: my kids had/have several friends at UCLA and it can be brutal. Of course, the one who found Frosh Chem “easy” had taken AP Chem (5), and a Chem course at Cornell (A). THAT, unfortunately is an example of the background of a lot of kids who are retaking the undergrad science sequences for the “easy A.” What they don’t realize is that a large # of students have the exact same background as them. It is not for those that are unprepared.*

Exactly…and when you super-test- study your way into a high ranking school, your classmates are going to be THOSE kids.

mcat2 · June 27, 2011, 8:22pm

This is actually a good question and I do not know the answer to this question. It is often easy to know your percentile (at least roughly) when you graduate because of all kinds of academic awards (excluding those research/EC ones, which are harder to quantify.)

Suppose that you are in the top 5% of your graduating class. Are you likely in the top 10% of your premed pool, GPA-wise?

At one time, I notice that at DS’s school, there are at least 1/3 of PBK inductees who are likely premeds (my educated guess by looking at their majors), and maybe only about 1/5-1/6 of the class are premeds who actually apply to medical schools in the end. (Much fewer if we exclude those who take a gap year or two.)

It is generally more difficult to get good grades as a premed. However, more premeds are good at tests and are more willing to put in a lot of efforts.

YeloPen · June 27, 2011, 10:37pm

I don’t think the assumption that a “tutored” SAT score “misrepresents your intelligence” (for the lack of a better phrase) is necessarily true. I don’t think tutoring magically raises your test score; it’s not going to do anything unless the student is intelligent enough to learn and internalize the information to begin with.

As for people who can not open a prep book and score a 2400, I don’t think they are necessarily smarter than other 2400 scorers; they simply have a better intuitive understanding of how to approach the test questions (not the best explanation I guess …). For instance, I got a 2380, but only after a summer prep class. The class didn’t teach me anything other than how to put myself in a mindset more fit to answer SAT-type questions. And once I got used to that, I scored well. In my top public high school I could not open a textbook and get 100, but the SAT is not like school and I needed prep to better approach SAT “knowledge.” And since the SAT is not like school, I don’t think a student who was tutored into a high score is going to have trouble at a top school assuming he/she got good grades in high school.

Not the clearest explanation … but that’s my opinion haha :)

phonyreal98 · June 28, 2011, 5:59pm

<h1>overkill.</h1>

If you’re taking more practice SATs than I took practice MCATs, that’s way too much.

Colleges00701 · June 28, 2011, 6:13pm

^^^ I agree, it was overkill on their part. I don’t know if they would have scored as high had they not done as much practice, but we will never know. Their college gpa is roughly the same as mine, so in the long run it made no difference.

BTW, whats a good number of practice MCATs to take? I was thinking 13-14 over a 4 week period.

phonyreal98 · June 28, 2011, 6:19pm

I’d say even that’s too much…you want to make sure to thoroughly review your answers (both correct and incorrect) for each one you take before going to the next one and that can take at least as long as the test itself. Some people find that it takes 2-3 times as long to review their answers than to take the test itself. It’s very likely that you’ll burn out if you take 14 tests in the span of less than a month. I want to say that I took about 10 tests spaced over a two month or so period before taking the actual thing.

Test practicing your way into elites for pre-med....

CONNECT WITH US