Efle's MCAT 2015 to Old MCAT Percentile Comparison/Conversion Tables

[Affiche]

@efle have you taken a practice LSAT? I assure you that the MCAT is much more based on identifying things in the passage than the LSAT. The LSAT relies much more significantly on inferences and other subtleties.

I'm not worried about it. My sciences sections are the same and a drop in verbal/CARS is more telling of the quality of the test than my ability to read.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

You're arguing that CARS relies on reasoning? The large majority of the questions rely on identifying the main idea of the passage, which is usually an argument based on very faulty reasoning.

It isn't faulty though. There are people who score top percentile on every single V practice exam without any V studying, and can tell you why they chose each answer they did.

 

[efle]

@efle have you taken a practice LSAT? I assure you that the MCAT is much more based on identifying things in the passage than the LSAT. The LSAT relies much more significantly on inferences and other subtleties.

I'm not worried about it. My sciences sections are the same and a drop in verbal/CARS is more telling of the quality of the test than my ability to read.

Only a partial one out of curiosity. The reading comp struck me as taking a lot less difficult reasoning than scoring 13-15V. The inferences are just much more straightforward, which is why everyone feels like V is a bunch of bad nonsense in comparison. But like I said there are people who can nail near perfect V every time and tell you the logic behind every answer. It's not meant to test if you can read / comprehend like LSAT is.

 

[Goro]

If you look at the MCAT subsection scores in MSAR, you'll notice that the 10th%ile for VR scores at many schools is one full point lower than Bio or PS. So that tells me that Adcoms cut the VR score the most slack.

Spend an hour taking a Verbal section as if your future career depended on scoring at least 10-11. You'll see why speaking English and being good at physics and chemistry doesn't always translate into high V scores!

 

[Affiche]

It isn't faulty though. There are people who score top percentile on every single V practice exam without any V studying, and can tell you why they chose each answer they did.

And there are also people whose scores vary significantly and some who just plain suck at verbal.

When I tested the first time, I consistently scored 13+ on verbal. Every single practice section that I took. It was easy and it made sense. I didn't understand how people struggled with it.
When I took the LSAT, I never scored more than 2-3 wrong on an RC section. It took me a week or so to get the speed of it down, but there was never an issue with accuracy.

When I look back at the MCAT verbal now, I can't help but notice poor logic, fragmented arguments, lack of evidence, absurd extrapolation, and questions that ask you to make inferences based on evidence I would never accept. From the LSAT, I'm trained to look for flaws and cancel out answer choices. For the MCAT, the right answer choice is often standing on flawed reasoning, and that can make it difficult for someone who's trained in formal logical to pick out a correct answer when they all seem awful. With enough review and practice (I did consider retaking), I feel confident that I would score well on CARS because I understand how to take the test now, which is why I'm hesitant to buy the argument that this score actually has predictive value.

 

[Affiche]

Maybe I'm just a weird case though and verbal really is predictive for the general population of test-takers. I suppose this would be analogous to a trained athlete arguing that BMI is a rip-off, too.

 

[efle]

If you look at the MCAT subsection scores in MSAR, you'll notice that the 10th%ile for VR scores at many schools is one full point lower than Bio or PS. So that tells me that Adcoms cut the VR score the most slack.

I dunno, for V ranges I'd argue that it's actually that the V curve itself is shifted a point lower at the high end. Eg 99th percentile begins at 13 vs 14 in the sciences, 95th at 11 instead of 12, in the 80s at 10 instead of 11. If you viewed all percentiles similarly the natural result would be values about a point lower in V.

And there are also people whose scores vary significantly and some who just plain suck at verbal.

When I tested the first time, I consistently scored 13+ on verbal. Every single practice section that I took. It was easy and it made sense. I didn't understand how people struggled with it.
When I took the LSAT, I never scored more than 2-3 wrong on an RC section. It took me a week or so to get the speed of it down, but there was never an issue with accuracy.

When I look back at the MCAT verbal now, I can't help but notice poor logic, fragmented arguments, lack of evidence, absurd extrapolation, and questions that ask you to make inferences based on evidence I would never accept. From the LSAT, I'm trained to look for flaws and cancel out answer choices. For the MCAT, the right answer choice is often standing on flawed reasoning, and that can make it difficult for someone who's trained in formal logical to pick out a correct answer when they all seem awful. With enough review and practice (I did consider retaking), I feel confident that I would score well on CARS because I understand how to take the test now, which is why I'm hesitant to buy the argument that this score actually has predictive value.

Oh absolutely agree that a lot of V is based on garbage reasoning in the passage. You just have to accept the stupid premises and apply logic well from there. Other people varying or doing consistently well is irrelevant; all that is necessary to prove the V can be conquered with enough brainpower is that some people can forever nail it. Perhaps you just started to focus too much on how bad the original argument is. If they put forth A + B = C, doesn't matter how much you can point out reasons they're wrong, you have to act as if it's right when they ask you what the author would say you get when you subtract A from C.

 

[Affiche]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The issue with a lot of CARS passages is that if you start applying logic, you find that all of the answer choices can be eliminated. This is what sunk me. I was trained to eliminate any choice that makes a false assumption. Served me very well on the LSAT but sunk me on the MCAT. After looking back and considering a retake, I score consistently high when I don't apply any logical reasoning at all but simply identify the the main idea and choose answer choices based on that.

I think you're getting caught up on trying to make the point that verbal requires logical reasoning and intelligence to do well on. From my experience with an above average IQ and logical reasoning test, I'm saying that it doesn't. A poor score doesn't make someone an idiot and a high score doesn't make someone a genius, as much as that may burn the ego of a lot of pre-meds on here.

 

[efle]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The issue with a lot of CARS passages is that if you start applying logic, you find that all of the answer choices can be eliminated. This is what sunk me. I was trained to eliminate any choice that makes a false assumption. Served me very well on the LSAT but sunk me on the MCAT. After looking back and considering a retake, I score consistently high when I don't apply any logical reasoning at all but simply identify the the main idea and choose answer choices based on that.

I think you're getting caught up on trying to make the point that verbal requires logical reasoning and intelligence to do well on. From my experience with an above average IQ and logical reasoning test, I'm saying that it doesn't. A poor score doesn't make someone an idiot and a high score doesn't make someone a genius, as much as that may burn the ego of a lot of pre-meds on here.

My counterargument continues to be the population of very smart people who can always reason their way to one of the answers being correct, and their choice always being the same as AAMCs.

Take a step back and look at your argument: that the group scoring best is actually less intelligent because the really capable reasoner will find all answers wrong and score closer to a guesser. This strikes me as a quite the set of gymnastics to protect ego from the implications of a lower score... Fact remains that verb reasoning tests correlate to IQ and that some very capable minds can always find a right answer given the (admittedly often flawed) premisis

 

[efle]

Protect ego? My first VR score was a 14. My LSAT score a 172. My ACT English and Reading both 36. My ego is fine lol.
I already said that perhaps for the majority of test-takers there is a correlation, but you seem insistent on the idea that everyone's VR/CARS score= IQ score. That's silly.
I never said that people scoring high are less intelligent, just that there are plenty of intelligent people that may not score high.
Alas, you seem static on your position that your verbal scores means you're a genius and everyone who scores below you has a low IQ score, so I'll let this one go

Calm down rachie. Obviously there will always be exceptions to the rule including yourself. I just disagree with your view that it would be anywhere near common for someone to be too smart/logical to do well in verbsies. My opinions about the MCAT are not really self praising, as I did well in sciences but have several times said I think the science sections should be seen as total garbage compared to prereq grades on those subjects. Ill be first to admit that SDN is full of more impressive brains than mine.

 

[Affiche]

@efle I don't think it's common at all, but it happens.
That's interesting that you think pre-req grades should be weighted more than the MCAT. Personally I think that there's too much variation in difficulty between universities for that to be the case, but it matters not.

 

[efle]

@efle I don't think it's common at all, but it happens.
That's interesting that you think pre-req grades should be weighted more than the MCAT. Personally I think that there's too much variation in difficulty between universities for that to be the case, but it matters not.

I suppose you're living proof it happened at least once! Ill still contend most lopsided scores come from being better at mathy symbol manipulation than phil style reasoning though.

University comparison is its own beast that can be pretty reasonably handled (and some places already is) I think. But yeah its pretty laughable imo to say you're assessing someones Chem/physics/ochem abilities with a multiple choice format and no calculus or even calculator involved. When you're only interested in the top fifth or so of test takers to begin with, you think you'd want a much more rigorous approach than that...such as what's done in year long university intro series.

 

[You're My Boy Blue]

There are pluses/minuses to both the MCAT and GPA. I don't think any one of them is a perfect predictor and that's why adcoms use both.

-There are plenty of people that aren't all that intelligent but work their absolute hardest to get good grades and succeed in UG but can't cut it in med school. The mcat screens these people out
-There are also people who are great test takers and can memorize anything but have the thinking ability of a toaster. gpa and interviews keep these people out as well
-There are just as many people who are incredibly smart and analytical thinkers that simply aren't good at standardized testing. The gpa, (decent, but not great) mcat, and interviews make sure these people get in

At least that's what I've noticed over the years...

 

[deleted393595]

For the MCAT, the right answer choice is often standing on flawed reasoning, and that can make it difficult for someone who's trained in formal logical to pick out a correct answer when they all seem awful. With enough review and practice (I did consider retaking), I feel confident that I would score well on CARS because I understand how to take the test now, which is why I'm hesitant to buy the argument that this score actually has predictive value.

@efle

I had the exact same issue on Verbal when I was studying for the MCAT a few years back.

Linky: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-from-vr-13-15-scorers.1027816/#post-14370052

"The foundations of the reasoning behind the Verbal section of the test is based on absolute Bull-crap. Why? Because the section has absolutely no correlation to the way people actually read and interpret written language. In other words, the "critical reading" ability that the section is trying to measure does not exist outside of the testing environment itself. Case and point: Whenever you read something, say a book on bioethics or chaos theory or dog breeds, you're supplying your own internal knowledge as a lens to understand the work. Essentially, this means that the process of writing is rhetorical since it is subjective process - what the writer means may be something that all readers interpret completely differently. This has been the prevailing notion in English Studies for at least the last 200 years, and it's puzzling to see why tests such as the MCAT and the SAT still believe in this hermetically-sealed world in which passages are objective entities that can stand by themselves - and how the test writers can be so divorced from the world of actual Rhetorical Textual Analysis.

That's why GTLO is right in saying that there are multiple ways of logically reaching the questioning stem - it's just that the subjectivity of the test writers plays a big role in which answer is the correct one, and they themselves ignore this subjectivity in favor of their belief that the test itself is "objective".

If you still don't believe me, think about just how many interpretations there are out of there of big works such as Hamlet and Macbeth. And these various interpretations are being propounded by English professors, who we would likely assume would be critical reading experts."

My counterargument continues to be the population of very smart people who can always reason their way to one of the answers being correct, and their choice always being the same as AAMCs.

If they are, it's guesswork. AAMC logic doesn't make sense and when it somewhat does, the reasoning is based on absolutely ridiculous assumptions.

University comparison is its own beast that can be pretty reasonably handled (and some places already is) I think. But yeah its pretty laughable imo to say you're assessing someones Chem/physics/ochem abilities with a multiple choice format and no calculus or even calculator involved. When you're only interested in the top fifth or so of test takers to begin with, you think you'd want a much more rigorous approach than that...such as what's done in year long university intro series.

I disagree. As an engineer, I can tell you that understanding basic principles and thinking quickly on your feet are more important than complex number crunching. That the MCAT can already tease apart the top 20% well enough demonstrates that its approach works for the sciences.

 

[Cotterpin]

CARS is nowhere near as illogical as you guys are making it out to be. On the one hand, trying to approach it with *Logic* is going too far in one direction. On the other hand, pretending like it's as subjective as Shakespeare is too far in the other direction. Each of the passages in CARS is making an argument with its own reasoning that really should not be that hard for anyone to follow. You're not applying some external rules of objectivity to it. You're not passing judgment on whether the author's argument is illogical or not. You don't have to agree with them. You just have to understand what they're saying. It's not that hard!

 

[efle]

@efle

I had the exact same issue on Verbal when I was studying for the MCAT a few years back.

Linky: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-from-vr-13-15-scorers.1027816/#post-14370052

"The foundations of the reasoning behind the Verbal section of the test is based on absolute Bull-crap. Why? Because the section has absolutely no correlation to the way people actually read and interpret written language. In other words, the "critical reading" ability that the section is trying to measure does not exist outside of the testing environment itself. Case and point: Whenever you read something, say a book on bioethics or chaos theory or dog breeds, you're supplying your own internal knowledge as a lens to understand the work. Essentially, this means that the process of writing is rhetorical since it is subjective process - what the writer means may be something that all readers interpret completely differently. This has been the prevailing notion in English Studies for at least the last 200 years, and it's puzzling to see why tests such as the MCAT and the SAT still believe in this hermetically-sealed world in which passages are objective entities that can stand by themselves - and how the test writers can be so divorced from the world of actual Rhetorical Textual Analysis.

That's why GTLO is right in saying that there are multiple ways of logically reaching the questioning stem - it's just that the subjectivity of the test writers plays a big role in which answer is the correct one, and they themselves ignore this subjectivity in favor of their belief that the test itself is "objective".

If you still don't believe me, think about just how many interpretations there are out of there of big works such as Hamlet and Macbeth. And these various interpretations are being propounded by English professors, who we would likely assume would be critical reading experts."



If they are, it's guesswork. AAMC logic doesn't make sense and when it somewhat does, the reasoning is based on absolutely ridiculous assumptions.



I disagree. As an engineer, I can tell you that understanding basic principles and thinking quickly on your feet are more important than complex number crunching. That the MCAT can already tease apart the top 20% well enough demonstrates that its approach works for the sciences.

Comparing complex subjective works like Hamlet to one page always very straightforward verbal reasoning passages is just bad argument, sorry GTLO. There is a best answer that can be consistently reasoned out. Saying the group of people that hit top percentile across ten tests in a row are doing it through guesswork is ridiculous. But this argument can go nowhere. All I can put forth are a handful of supportive facts like that crit reading tests correlate with IQ.

As impressive as your engi credentials are, I don't believe you can get into much depth in the majority of physics topics without any calc. I don't believe you can be as rigorous in ochem with MC format compared to generating it in free response. And I agree that doing calculations isn't valuable - that's why there should be a calculator so that they're actually purely testing your ability to set up a problem conceptually and not also testing your ability to execute the number crunching like the current system does.

 

[Banco]

I also thought verbal was pretty straight forward when I took it. I never really "studied" for it, just did the AAMC practice tests. What helped me most for verbal was probably the fact that I had been reading novels for years, so my reading speed was on point.

 

[efle]

CARS is nowhere near as illogical as you guys are making it out to be. On the one hand, trying to approach it with *Logic* is going too far in one direction. On the other hand, pretending like it's as subjective as Shakespeare is too far in the other direction. Each of the passages in CARS is making an argument with its own reasoning that really should not be that hard for anyone to follow. You're not applying some external rules of objectivity to it. You're not passing judgment on whether the author's argument is illogical or not. You don't have to agree with them. You just have to understand what they're saying. It's not that hard!

This describes Verbal as well. Some people get it. Some like rachiie get it for a while, lose it on test day, then regain it in hindsight. But nobody scores near perfect across a dozen tests through guesswork...

 

[Cotterpin]

I wouldn't quite call the math on the MCAT "number crunching." Lol.

 

[efle]

Got to say I'm shocked to see @Goro liking a post that says universities are too different in rigor for GPA comparisons. Pretty sure he once told me "MIT or Kutztown, to me an A is an A"

I wouldn't quite call the math on the MCAT "number crunching." Lol.

It just often has a number crunching component that could be cut out to more directly test reasoning

 

[deleted393595]

CARS is nowhere near as illogical as you guys are making it out to be. On the one hand, trying to approach it with *Logic* is going too far in one direction. On the other hand, pretending like it's as subjective as Shakespeare is too far in the other direction. Each of the passages in CARS is making an argument with its own reasoning that really should not be that hard for anyone to follow. You're not applying some external rules of objectivity to it. You're not passing judgment on whether the author's argument is illogical or not. You don't have to agree with them. You just have to understand what they're saying. It's not that hard!

Understanding what I wrote isn't that hard! You don't have to agree with me. You just have to understand what I'm saying. Which you clearly didn't. And thanks for backhandedly calling us dumb.

You completely missed my point is that no work is truly objective. ALL works are subjective and rhetorical, and that you missed the "argument" of my post is proof that your logic is flawed and self-defeating.

And I probably missed the key points of your argument because perfectly communicating ideas through text is extremely hard. Also your post seems like a self-contradictory word salad to me in a lot of places.

As impressive as your engi credentials are, I don't believe you can get into much depth in the majority of physics topics without any calc.

@efle We're clashing over this because we think with very different mindsets. As a scientist, your focus is on deeply understanding the mechanisms at play. As an engineer, I'm more focused on application, which is the type of content the MCAT does and ought to test. If the MCAT was focused on deep knowledge, then you are absolutely 100% right.

But in terms of application, knowing the intuitive principles at work is more important. In fact, my engineering boss has yelled at me several times to stop writing out complex equations and to sit on my hands and mentally play around with the basic principles at play. Why? Because real-world problem solving requires you to play around with fundamental principles rather than figuring out the spherical equations describing the orbit of a electron with a certain energy level. And getting those fundamental principles to line up correctly still takes an incredible amount of analytical intuition and deep knowledge.

 

[efle]

Understanding what I wrote isn't that hard! You don't have to agree with me. You just have to understand what I'm saying. Which you clearly didn't.

You completely missed my point is that no work is truly objective. ALL works are subjective and rhetorical, and that you missed the "argument" of my post is proof that your logic is flawed and self-defeating.

And I probably missed the key points of your argument because perfectly communicating ideas through text is extremely hard. Also your post seems self-contradictory to me in a lot of places.



We're clashing over this because we think with very different mindsets. As a scientist, your focus is on deeply understanding the mechanisms at play. As an engineer, I'm more focused on application, which is the type of content the MCAT does and ought to test. If the MCAT was deeply focused on deep knowledge, then you are absolutely 100% right.

But in terms of application, knowing the intuitive principles at work is more important. In fact, my engineering boss has yelled at me several times to stop writing out complex equations and to sit on my hands and mentally play around with the basic principles at play. Why? Because real-world problem solving requires you to play around with fundamental principles rather than figuring out the spherical equations describing the orbit of a electron with a certain energy level. And getting those fundamental principles to line up correctly takes an incredible amount of analytical intuition.

All written works are subjective? Does this mean the passage-based science questions are also guesswork, since maybe my sociocultural lens leads me to interpret "molarity" in that context to have a different meaning than you?

It isn't about knowledge, it's about challenging abstract thinking. The conceptually difficult topics involve stuff like flux and related rates and differential **** that algebra-based physics questions just can't generate. I don't think you need big equations to satisfy what I'm talking about. But what is in the MCAT is too shallow. It tests your ability to quickly answer many short, simple questions with high accuracy. It's like saying they want to test your language ability but only regarding one and two syllable words. Yes you can in the real world convey a lot with short words and phrases. No, you can't really find out who has best mastered the language that way.

 

[Cotterpin]

Understanding what I wrote isn't that hard! You don't have to agree with me. You just have to understand what I'm saying. Which you clearly didn't.

You completely missed my point is that no work is truly objective. ALL works are subjective and rhetorical, and that you missed the "argument" of my post is proof that your logic is flawed and self-defeating.

And I probably missed the key points of your argument because perfectly communicating ideas through text is extremely hard. Also your post seems like a self-contradictory word salad to me in a lot of places.

How do you figure that I missed your point? I was addressing both you and Rachie, which might have confused you. I completely caught your point that no work is truly objective and I'm disagreeing by saying that the passages on the MCAT aren't truly subjective, either. It's somewhere in between. So.... I didn't miss your point, but you are definitely having trouble following me.

 

[deleted393595]

All written works are subjective? Does this mean the passage-based science questions are also guesswork, since maybe my sociocultural lens leads me to interpret "molarity" in that context to have a different meaning than you?

It isn't about knowledge, it's about challenging abstract thinking. The conceptually difficult topics involve stuff like flux and related rates and differential **** that algebra-based physics questions just can't generate. I don't think you need big equations to satisfy what I'm talking about. But what is in the MCAT is too shallow. It tests your ability to quickly answer many short, simple questions with high accuracy. It's like saying they want to test your language ability but only regarding one and two syllable words. Yes you can in the real world convey a lot with short words and phrases. No, you can't really find out who has best mastered the language that way.

I think I know why we're still stuck in this argument loop.

Lemme try to clear it up: Lets imagine that conceptual depth and application are 2 separate axis-es. Where on the graph do you wish for the MCAT to be located?

How do you figure that I missed your point? I was addressing both you and Rachie, which might have confused you. I completely caught your point that no work is truly objective and I'm disagreeing by saying that the passages on the MCAT aren't truly subjective, either. It's somewhere in between. So.... I didn't miss your point, but you are definitely having trouble following me.

Lemme try to clarify this situation also You have two points in your post:

1) Each passage on the MCAT is somewhat logical and somewhat subjective.
2) You then contradict yourself by saying that anyone should be able to follow the logic in those passages. If that was true, then those passages would be 100% logical and 0% subjective.

My argument stems from basic rhetorical and communication theory: The writer/speaker sends out their message at a certain frequency. The listener has to then be tuned at the exact same frequency. That frequency is determined by the context of the work, which is subjective and not objective.

Out of curiosity, do you consider knowledge to be absolute or relative?

 

[Tommyguns89]

@efle have you taken a practice LSAT? I assure you that the MCAT is much more based on identifying things in the passage than the LSAT. The LSAT relies much more significantly on inferences and other subtleties.

I'm not worried about it. My sciences sections are the same and a drop in verbal/CARS is more telling of the quality of the test than my ability to read.

I have taken the lsat and according to my preliminaries I did

I disagree. My LSAT score is within 3% of my IQ percentile, but my CARS is like, 50 percentiles away lol. As much as pre-meds would love for their verbal/CARS scores to qualify them as geniuses, there is really no reason to believe that there's any correlation there.



Disagree again. My score on the LSAT, which is actually called "Reading Comprehension", is in the top 2%. I don't think anyone could wisely argue that the new MCAT CARS tests reading comprehension better than the LSAT.

So then what? My CARS score was a fluke?
I missed a passage? Possible.
I just didn't study for it? True.
Or CARS is really not indicative of anything? I believe so.

My issue with CARS is that it's filled with passages that rely on poor/no evidence and faulty assumptions, and you're supposed to make inferences based on that. You can get better by studying for it so I really don't believe it's indicative of anyone's intelligence, just their willingness to spend time doing MCAT CARS passages.

Weird. I also took the Lsat. According to my percentiles and SDN data I got at least a 129 on CARs(probably higher, to fall within my predicted overall range it would need to be at least a 130, given my ranges for the other sections). All I remember about the lsat was that I got in the mid 80's percentile wise(low-mid 160s) and that I performed pretty uniform across all 3 sections. It goes without saying that I found CARS to be much easier than both the reading comp and logical reasoning sections on the lsat. I think it may have been because the mcat was on the computer and I found it easier to read the passage that way.

 

[efle]

I think I know why we're still stuck in this argument loop.

Lemme try to clear it up: Lets imagine that conceptual depth and application are 2 separate axis-es. Where on the graph do you wish for the MCAT to be located?



Lemme try to clarify this situation also You have two points in your post:

1) Each passage on the MCAT is somewhat logical and somewhat subjective.
2) You then contradict yourself by saying that anyone should be able to follow the logic in those passages. If that was true, then those passages would be 100% logical and 0% subjective.

My argument stems from basic rhetorical and communication theory: The writer/speaker sends out their message at a certain frequency. The listener has to then be tuned at the exact same frequency. That frequency is determined by the context of the work, which is subjective and not objective.

Out of curiosity, do you consider knowledge to be absolute or relative?

It should be purely a test of reasoning / conceptual understanding. The actual value of applicable knowledge for say, Ochem (you know that bond X will shift but don't know underlying reasons why) is nil for heading into med school. What matters is having a strong mind for conceptual mastery (plus a good work ethic, tested in other ways).

 

[Tommyguns89]

1) very different populations taking MCAT vs LSAT. LSAT takers are not required to survive a 75% weed out through classes like Ochem with strong grades in order to sit for the test. Would not surprise me if 98th percentile LSAT was far from equivalent to 98th MCAT (again based on the testing populations not on the test itself).

2) Reading comp is different from verbal reasoning.

3) Verb is very resistant to improvement from studying. PS/BS aren't.

N=1,but my percentile rank on the lsat= 86 if i am remembering correctly. My preliminary range on the mcat: 80-90. I studied around the same for both, but I took the Mcat without taking biochem which I do not recommend now that I am currently taking biochem and see how much more a class would have helped over the material currently available from prep companies.

 

[deleted393595]

It should be purely a test of reasoning / conceptual understanding

So you want more stuff on there like "Given these reactants, what is the final product?"

 

[Cotterpin]

Lemme try to clarify this situation also You have two points in your post:

1) Each passage on the MCAT is somewhat logical and somewhat subjective.
2) You then contradict yourself by saying that anyone should be able to follow the logic in those passages. If that was true, then those passages would be 100% logical and 0% subjective.

My argument stems from basic rhetorical and communication theory: The writer/speaker sends out their message at a certain frequency. The listener has to then be tuned at the exact same frequency. That frequency is determined by the context of the work, which is subjective and not objective.

Out of curiosity, do you consider knowledge to be absolute or relative?

Okay, you are still overthinking/misunderstanding what I'm saying. Each different author of a passage presents their argument using not the logical system you are bringing in and imposing on them, but their own line of reasoning. Your job is simply to follow their line of reasoning. This is not based on anything as fancy as "rhetorical and communication theory." It's just reading.

I think that probably some knowledge is absolute and other knowledge is relative. But I don't really spend a whole lot of time worry about it. Why?

 

[deleted393595]

Okay, you are still overthinking/misunderstanding what I'm saying. Each different author of a passage presents their argument using not the logical system you are bringing in and imposing on them, but their own line of reasoning. Your job is simply to follow their line of reasoning. This is not based on anything as fancy as "rhetorical and communication theory." It's just reading.

And the ability to follow their line of reasoning comes from?

I think that probably some knowledge is absolute and other knowledge is relative. But I don't really spend a whole lot of time worry about it. Why?

Ok. Now I understand why we're clashing over this

 

[Cotterpin]

And the ability to follow their line of reasoning comes from?

Reading and comprehending their words. A good expository writer will not be impossible to follow. And the MCAT doesn't use bad writers.

Ok. Now I understand why we're clashing over this

Yeah..... I feel like I'm trying to explain to a robot how human emotions work.

 

[efle]

So you want more stuff on there like "Given these reactants, what is the final product?"

Yes, the type of thing on real Ochem tests like given this molecule in acid, draw what happens, would be much better imo

 

[deleted393595]

Reading and comprehending their words. A good expository writer will not be impossible to follow. And the MCAT doesn't use bad writers.

Now you're just arguing with me for argument's sake. You know just as well as I do that comprehension is context based. Either that or you're mentally denser than osmium.

Btw, lets see if you can repeat what you said above when you get your scores back on your first real MCAT

I regularly got 13+ on my practice MCATs. Thought I was going to get a 15 on my real MCAT because VR felt super easy and because I had 20 mins left over. I was incredibly surprised because I never had more than 2 mins left on my practice tests. But reality didn't work out that way. The test is far more subjective than you think.

Yes, the type of thing on real Ochem tests like given this molecule in acid, draw what happens, would be much better imo

How far in depth would you go? Beyond the 1 year OChem course?

 

[Affiche]

How do you figure that I missed your point? I was addressing both you and Rachie, which might have confused you. I completely caught your point that no work is truly objective and I'm disagreeing by saying that the passages on the MCAT aren't truly subjective, either. It's somewhere in between. So.... I didn't miss your point, but you are definitely having trouble following me.

You're misunderstanding what logical reasoning is and that makes it difficult for us to understand your point.

When you are trained in formal logic, looking for poor evidence becomes second nature. You can't base a conclusion on bull**** evidence no matter how easy it is to follow the line of thinking it takes to get there. If the evidence doesn't support the conclusion, the conclusion is wrong. So when I'm reading a passage and a question asks me to make an inference based on evidence in the passage, it becomes difficult to choose an answer because literally every option reaches a conclusion that evidence doesn't support. This is exactly what the LSAT wants you to know! You don't choose the answer that highlights the main idea, you choose the answer that doesn't have flawed reasoning. It shouldn't be hard to understand why someone going from the LSAT to the MCAT without ever doing an MCAT CARS section would score poorly.

Edit: it's laughable that anyone would suggest the MCAT doesn't use bad writers.

 

[Affiche]

N=1,but my percentile rank on the lsat= 86 if i am remembering correctly. My preliminary range on the mcat: 80-90. I studied around the same for both, but I took the Mcat without taking biochem which I do not recommend now that I am currently taking biochem and see how much more a class would have helped over the material currently available from prep companies.

This is different from what I'm describing because I didn't study for the MCAT verbal at all. Based on my scoring a 36 on english and reading on the ACT and a 172 on the LSAT, I don't think anyone would suggest that my reading comprehension is poor. I have the skills necessary to score high in reading comprehension and verbal reasoning, as demonstrated by previous tests, but without practicing specifically for the MCAT CARS I didn't do well. This leads me to believe the CARS section is reflective of time spent preparing rather than ability to comprehend writing.

 

[Affiche]

And finally! Someone who scores highly in the science sections has reading comprehension skills! You can't honestly think that someone who can read scientific passages and apply knowledge is lacking in reading comprehension or critical thinking. That's ridiculous. If I'm looking at someone with an 8 in Verbal but a 13+ in bio and physics sections, I'm more inclined to think he/she is a better fit for med school than a kid with a 13 on Verbal and an 8 in the two sciences. You can cry all you want that the higher verbal score has better reading skills and argue that's helpful, but the data is against you (bio section is best predictor, and mine was dynamite but thanks for asserting that me and @ElCapone are dummies lol).

 

[Tommyguns89]

This is different from what I'm describing because I didn't study for the MCAT verbal at all. Based on my scoring a 36 on english and reading on the ACT and a 172 on the LSAT, I don't think anyone would suggest that my reading comprehension is poor. I have the skills necessary to score high in reading comprehension and verbal reasoning, as demonstrated by previous tests, but without practicing specifically for the MCAT CARS I didn't do well. This leads me to believe the CARS section is reflective of time spent preparing rather than ability to comprehend writing.

I didnt study for verbal either besides doing the AAMC FL(mainly because I only got one wrong on that). Also I am not saying that your reading comprehension is poor. I was just replying to another poster who mentioned a difference between the difficulty of the two tests with my experience. Also I have heard from people here that CARS is actually the section that is least dependent on time spent studying. I cant really comment on that because I never studied for it or had to improve it.

 

[Cotterpin]

Now you're just arguing with me for argument's sake. You know just as well as I do that comprehension is context based. Either that or you're mentally denser than osmium.

Btw, lets see if you can repeat what you said above when you get your scores back on your first real MCAT

I regularly got 13+ on my practice MCATs. Thought I was going to get a 15 on my real MCAT because VR felt super easy and because I had 20 mins left over. I was incredibly surprised because I never had more than 2 mins left on my practice tests. But reality didn't work out that way. The test is far more subjective than you think.

No, I'm not arguing with you for argument's sake. Of course context is important, but there are different levels. Don't go outside of the text they give you. "Context" in this case means literally the words and ideas that come before or after what you're reading. That's all you need to understand a passage on the MCAT. Just freaking read it, you know? I think at most I scrolled down to the bottom of a passage to see the author, date, and title of a piece. But even then, that was mostly just out of curiosity.

I don't know what happened for you on the actual test, but it seems like suddenly having 20 minutes left over might be a clue.

You're misunderstanding what logical reasoning is and that makes it difficult for us to understand your point.

When you are trained in formal logic, looking for poor evidence becomes second nature. You can't base a conclusion on bull**** evidence no matter how easy it is to follow the line of thinking it takes to get there. If the evidence doesn't support the conclusion, the conclusion is wrong. So when I'm reading a passage and a question asks me to make an inference based on evidence in the passage, it becomes difficult to choose an answer because literally every option reaches a conclusion that evidence doesn't support. This is exactly what the LSAT wants you to know! You don't choose the answer that highlights the main idea, you choose the answer that doesn't have flawed reasoning. It shouldn't be hard to understand why someone going from the LSAT to the MCAT without ever doing an MCAT CARS section would score poorly.

Edit: it's laughable that anyone would suggest the MCAT doesn't use bad writers.

I'm not misunderstanding what "logical reasoning" is. This whole conversation is kind of giving me an idea of why you and ElCapone had so much trouble with CARS. It's like one of those questions on the test that goes "In paragraph one, when Cotterpin writes, 'Each of the passages in CARS is making an argument with its own reasoning,' the word 'reasoning' means:

A) The formal logic that rachiie was trained in
B) The particular sequence of concepts, premises, explanations, and conclusions set out by the writer of a CARS passage"

I have never taken the LSAT, but I know you're a smart person and that you know how to read. Don't bring your LSAT training into the MCAT. It's not useful. When I was prepping for the MCAT, I was using those Kaplan books and I had to put down the CARS book because I could see that it was never going to do me any good. I already know how to read. Trying to force a piece of writing into some tortured test-taking strategy is only going to interfere with the ability to communicate fluently in English that I have been developing for thirty years. The people who wrote the CARS passages didn't write them for a standardized test, so you don't have to bring your precious formal logic training to bear on them. Apparently, it hurt you more than helped you.

 

[Affiche]

Yeah you missed every point that I made lol. This is a circular argument because you aren't actually responding to what people are saying, you're just restating the same opinion over and over. No one here is misunderstanding your point. There is no lack of comprehension of what you're saying, there's just disagreement. It's not worth having a discussion with you about why we disagree because you're getting defensive (''your precious formal logic'') and your responses lack legitimate points. Your responses show that you aren't following our reasoning, not the other way around lol. That explains why you keep insisting reading is a passive experience!

But wait, you haven't even received an MCAT score? Is that what @ElCapone meant? And you don't know what the LSAT is. And you don't know what logical reasoning is. Why are you even in this conversation when you have no experience to draw from?

 

[Affiche]

I didnt study for verbal either besides doing the AAMC FL(mainly because I only got one wrong on that). Also I am not saying that your reading comprehension is poor. I was just replying to another poster who mentioned a difference between the difficulty of the two tests with my experience. Also I have heard from people here that CARS is actually the section that is least dependent on time spent studying. I cant really comment on that because I never studied for it or had to improve it.

I think I stated my opinion on improving further up in the thread, but I could be mistaken. I definitely think that people have different peaks in verbal performance. If your baseline is far from your peak, studying will help.

Pre-meds have a very strong opinion about what pre-law is, including the LSAT. Most of the time you'd do well to just ignore it because their egos can't handle that another standardized test might be as difficult as the one they take. Not only that, but unless you've taken the full LSAT in real timed conditions, you don't understand the nature of the test. Efle is an anomaly on here because you can actually reason with him and usually he'll open his mind up to another perspective. Others will simply restate their opinion and grow more defensive. At that point, the discussion isn't productive and I step out (like I'm about to do here).

By the way, I never meant to imply that anyone who takes the LSAT is doomed for the MCAT lol just that there is an extra component to RC on the LSAT that could mess someone up on the MCAT.

 

[Cotterpin]

Yeah you missed every point that I made lol. This is a circular argument because you aren't actually responding to what people are saying, you're just restating the same opinion over and over. No one here is misunderstanding your point. There is no lack of comprehension of what you're saying, there's just disagreement. It's not worth having a discussion with you about why we disagree because you're getting defensive (''your precious formal logic'') and your responses lack legitimate points. Your responses show that you aren't following our reasoning, not the other way around lol. That explains why you keep insisting reading is a passive experience!

But wait, you haven't even received an MCAT score? Is that what @ElCapone meant? And you don't know what the LSAT is. And you don't know what logical reasoning is. Why are you even in this conversation when you have no experience to draw from?

You are being really rude and defensive. You literally said that it was difficult for you to understand my point, so that's why I'm still trying to explain myself to you. But I can see that it's not doing any good because you're already completely set in only seeing things from your one angle (which is probably why you didn't do well on CARS.)

I didn't say I don't know what the LSAT is. I said I've never taken it. I also never said reading is a passive experience. So there you go: just in reading my posts you have had problems with both comprehension and making inferences.

I took the MCAT yesterday, so I don't have my score yet. It's certainly possible that my score on the real thing will be lower than my practice tests, but the experience of the test didn't feel any different from the practices (e.g. I didn't suddenly have 20 extra minutes left over,) so I'm not any more worried about CARS than any of the other sections. But more importantly, I'm relaxed about it because it's not going to destroy my ego if I don't get the score I think I'm entitled to.

 

[efle]

Now you're just arguing with me for argument's sake. You know just as well as I do that comprehension is context based. Either that or you're mentally denser than osmium.

Btw, lets see if you can repeat what you said above when you get your scores back on your first real MCAT

I regularly got 13+ on my practice MCATs. Thought I was going to get a 15 on my real MCAT because VR felt super easy and because I had 20 mins left over. I was incredibly surprised because I never had more than 2 mins left on my practice tests. But reality didn't work out that way. The test is far more subjective than you think.



How far in depth would you go? Beyond the 1 year OChem course?

I think the standard year of Ochem teaches you more than enough fundamentals to be presented with very challenging but totally solvable puzzles. Same with physics, even a single semester of calc-based E&M topics should leave a test writer more than enough to work with to make some very conceptually and logically challenging scenarios.

 

[efle]

People gettin so angry up in here
Y'all can disagree and put forth argument without attacking each other sheesh

 

[Affiche]

You are being really rude and defensive. You literally said that it was difficult for you to understand my point, so that's why I'm still trying to explain myself to you. But I can see that it's not doing any good because you're already completely set in only seeing things from your one angle (which is probably why you didn't do well on CARS.)

I didn't say I don't know what the LSAT is. I said I've never taken it. I also never said reading is a passive experience. So there you go: just in reading my posts you have had problems with both comprehension and making inferences.

I took the MCAT yesterday, so I don't have my score yet. It's certainly possible that my score on the real thing will be lower than my practice tests, but the experience of the test didn't feel any different from the practices (e.g. I didn't suddenly have 20 extra minutes left over,) so I'm not any more worried about CARS than any of the other sections. But more importantly, I'm relaxed about it because it's not going to destroy my ego if I don't get the score I think I'm entitled to.

I believe I acknowledged multiple times that most testers will have a different experience than me. That's not exactly being closed-minded.

No one else here is having a hard time discussing this subject with each other...just you. You came in here with no personal experiences but spoke condescendingly, so you shouldn't be surprised when people aren't incredibly polite in return. Everyone else here was having a nice discussion until you jumped in. I mean, let's isolate the variable here!

 

[Affiche]

I think the standard year of Ochem teaches you more than enough fundamentals to be presented with very challenging but totally solvable puzzles. Same with physics, even a single semester of calc-based E&M topics should leave a test writer more than enough to work with to make some very conceptually and logically challenging scenarios.

I wish the MCAT had more actually o-chem problems instead of just testing on chem lab procedures lol

 

[Cotterpin]

I believe I acknowledged multiple times that most testers will have a different experience than me. That's not exactly being closed-minded.

No one else here is having a hard time discussing this subject with each other...just you. You came in here with no personal experiences but spoke condescendingly, so you shouldn't be surprised when people aren't incredibly polite in return. Everyone else here was having a nice discussion until you jumped in. I mean, let's isolate the variable here!

What on Earth? I'm not going to keep arguing with you here, but you were not having a nice discussing before I jumped in. I read the thread, you know. Plus, you have been incredibly condescending to me from the get. I have "no personal experiences"? Are you serious?

 

[Affiche]

Bye, Felicia!

 

[deleted393595]

You are being really rude and defensive.

Nice try pulling this line. It won't work here. Lets look at what you posted earlier:

CARS is nowhere near as illogical as you guys are making it out to be. On the one hand, trying to approach it with *Logic* is going too far in one direction. On the other hand, pretending like it's as subjective as Shakespeare is too far in the other direction. Each of the passages in CARS is making an argument with its own reasoning that really should not be that hard for anyone to follow. You're not applying some external rules of objectivity to it. You're not passing judgment on whether the author's argument is illogical or not. You don't have to agree with them. You just have to understand what they're saying. It's not that hard!

1. Condescendingly pops in, and calls everyone here stupid

Yeah..... I feel like I'm trying to explain to a robot how human emotions work.

2. When I'm trying to be nice and civil with you, you pop in another backhand insult.

@Cotterpin: I'm going to wish you the all best with your medical career. Why? Because either you 1) Have no self awareness of your own actions or 2) Are an incredibly condescending and arrogant guy in real life. I'm willing to bet that you will pull something like this off in residency - assuming you can sneak past the interviews with your personality. And in residency, your habit of claiming knowledge about topics you know nothing about and claiming that others are *****s for not knowing what you do (when you clearly don't) is going to rub a lot of Senior Residents and Attendings the wrong way. So don't be surprised when everyone you work with hates you, and you eventually get kicked out of residency. No one likes a prick.

But wait, you haven't even received an MCAT score? Is that what @ElCapone meant?

Yup! Saw from his post history that he took the MCAT yesterday, but has no idea how his performance went.

People gettin so angry up in here
Y'all can disagree and put forth argument without attacking each other sheesh

Unfortunately @Cotterpin isn't as nice, civil and mature as you efle

 

[Cotterpin]

I'm not doing this with you anymore, @ElCapone. I never called either of you stupid, I said you were overthinking it. That's different. It's more of a "too smart for your own good" thing. It was obviously stupid of me to try to think I could talk to either of you about this when both of you were already hyper-defensive about this from before I even posted. Your assessment of me is based on nothing. You don't know me at all and, frankly, I think you're being a huge jerk here.

And as creepy as it is that you went through my post history, you didn't seem to pick up on the fact that I'm a woman.

 

[efle]

nice, civil and mature

lol

I do enjoy a good forum fight. With rachiie bowing out, will capone step up to continue battling cotterpin? Capone opens with "you don't even know how MCAT went" countered by "you're creepy and a huge jerk". What will happen next?