I am a Senior Biological Sciences Instructor with Examkrackers. AMA about MCAT!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

medschoolappl

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
124
I don't know what to show for proof. Mods can message me if they need something specific.

I scored 97th percentile when I took the exam in 2010. I am editing the 8th edition of their biology and organic chemistry textbooks right now as well as working on a series of AAMC practice test review DVDs. I have taught both BS and PS for over a year in one-on-one and classroom settings. Ask me anything about the MCAT!

Members don't see this ad.
 
People seem to feel like the BS section has changed recently - for the worse, into something more difficult than the AAMCs. What is the best way to prepare for the BS section?
 
@Emmerson I don't think this is true. I have taken all the AAMC practice exams and I think they accurately reflect both the content and difficulty of the real thing. It is true that organic is slowly being de-emphasized in favor of biochemistry and molecular biology topics, but these changes largely won't come into effect until the 2015 revision.

The best way to prepare is having a really solid grounding in the subject areas covered. Get the official inventory of topics from AAMC's website and make sure you understand all of the topics. Then, use the official practice exams to form an idea about how high yield each topic is and how well you really understand them (reflected in the diagnostic report). This will give you a more targeted approach to your studying. Also, one of the unspoken truths about the BS section, is that it is rather physiology intensive. Take a physiology class if you can and preferentially over an upper level class in biochem or cell bio. You can do well without a formal course but make sure you have physiology down cold. It is very likely that you did not cover most of the topics in your intro bio class.
 
How is EK preparing for the 2015 switchover?

Where do you get your information about the test from? Do you have direct contact with AAMC or the test creators, or are you guys using past tests/AAMC website only just like everyone else? Who is determining if EK/test prep companies are covering the material adequately and appropriately? Is there a watchdog for prep companies?

I am interested in the politics of this world.

Thanks for doing this MedSchoolApple. :)

Best,
C
 
Members don't see this ad :)
When you say "have physiology down cold", can you elaborate? I guess what I'm asking is, if you know EK biology forward and backward, are you, at least in terms of knowledge, completely covered for that section? The book proper is only something like 180 pages, so I guess that's why I'm a bit skeptical (and also because some prep books cover/exclude different details).
 
Last edited:
@catzzz88 I sat in on a conference call put on by AAMC a few months ago titled "Changes to the MCAT 2015". They were cryptic about exact changes but they at least gave us an idea about their methodology and the revision process. Test prep companies will be informed about the exact changes like everybody else so there will likely be a little delay between when the test comes out and when our books reflect the changes. The GRE was the same way.

Is there any central oversight. Not really. The market drives quality. As I am sure you know, MCAT prep is a cut throat and very lucrative market and there is a lot of competition. Also, pre-medical students are extremely vocal about their preferences. If a company's materials are inadequate the company will quickly be eliminated. Each company tries to differentiate their product in little ways to give themselves an edge. For example, EK was the first prep company to make full color books. It sounds trivial but after endless hours of review this makes a difference. Ultimately, the fact that we exist and continue to gain market traction is a reflection of the quality of our product.

Great question!
 
@Emmerson I don't think this is true. I have taken all the AAMC practice exams and I think they accurately reflect both the content and difficulty of the real thing. It is true that organic is slowly being de-emphasized in favor of biochemistry and molecular biology topics, but these changes largely won't come into effect until the 2015 revision.

The best way to prepare is having a really solid grounding in the subject areas covered. Get the official inventory of topics from AAMC's website and make sure you understand all of the topics. Then, use the official practice exams to form an idea about how high yield each topic is and how well you really understand them (reflected in the diagnostic report). This will give you a more targeted approach to your studying. Also, one of the unspoken truths about the BS section, is that it is rather physiology intensive. Take a physiology class if you can and preferentially over an upper level class in biochem or cell bio. You can do well without a formal course but make sure you have physiology down cold. It is very likely that you did not cover most of the topics in your intro bio class.

As a recent taker of the MCAT, I must respectfully disagree. I don't think the biological sciences section from the AAMC practice exams accurately reflects the biological sciences section on the MCAT exams that are being given recently. Have you taken a recent MCAT exam, as in some time this year?
 
@powersellingmom Our books are a review and don't claim to be anything else. If you use them without a solid foundation in the material you will likely find yourself overwhelmed. This is true about physiology and all other subjects. Nevertheless, we hit all the high points in our books and we only emphasize material that is likely to come up on the test (read high yield material). There is essentially no filler in our books and that is why it is so condensed. I encourage you to fact check me by looking at the AAMC official inventory of topics alongside our table of contents.
 
@typicalindian I took the test in 2010 and only had one testing administration. I can only speak based on my experiences. I will say that as an instructor I have never had a student come to me after their testing administration and say it was grossly different than what they prepped for. How specifically was it different?
 
So I'm sitting here about to start organic chemistry review and I delayed it until the end. I have TBR O.Chem which is roughly 400 pages of content and EK which is 100. I'm inclined to use O.Chem from EK because I was really strong in the classes (received A's in both), and just finished O.Chem 2 this semester, and frankly I'm pressed for time. My questions is the O.Chem so much less than other companies because EK feels like with how low yield organic is it's not worth putting that much time into it (i.e. they'd rather you study more for bio and sacrifice a few points in O.Chem), or is everything we need to know really covered, or at least mentioned in those 100 pages?

Throughout the AAMC's I've taken so far, the O.Chem has been extremely easy compared to class, is that true on the real thing as well?
 
I understand that EK is meant to give the reader the information in a very condensed form but do you think that you guys cut out too much information? There are times when I run into discrete questions in the practice AAMC BS sections that the book does not address. Ex. Which side of the heart has more muscle?

During those rare instances, I have to rely on my knowledge from undergrad to pull me through. Do you only recommend the company's books to someone who is fresh out of undergrad or is it accessible to people who do not have a strong foundation in the sciences?
 
@impact2d We include every topic covered; I encourage you to fact check me too by comparing the official inventory of topics to our TOC. What we do not include extensive arrow pushing or ponderous consideration of low yield topics. Example: we devote three pages to SN1& 2 and about half a page to the aldol condensation or Wolff kishner. The latter being very low yield topics. This is how we save so much space and your time.
 
@TheShaker I think it really depends on how much time you have to devote to preparation. Our books are designed to be used for about 6-10 weeks of intense review for students to who have a solid foundation in the material. We leave out factoids and trivia in favor of a unified overview of high yield material. This necessitates leaving things like which side of the heart pumps harder. You should be able to answer that question based on intuition ; systemic circulation is much more extensive than pulmonary so it makes sense the left ventricle must pump harder than the right.
 
@impact2d We include every topic covered; I encourage you to fact check me too by comparing the official inventory of topics to our TOC. What we do not include extensive arrow pushing or ponderous consideration of low yield topics. Example: we devote three pages to SN1& 2 and about half a page to the aldol condensation or Wolff kishner. The latter being very low yield topics. This is how we save so much space and your time.
That was the impression I had from flipping through. I think if your O.Chem class gave a you a firm foundation in the mechanisms and background, that EK really does have everything needed. Plus, I figure I can always refer back to notes if a mechanism evades my memory. Thanks for the response!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
@Emmerson I don't think this is true. I have taken all the AAMC practice exams and I think they accurately reflect both the content and difficulty of the real thing. It is true that organic is slowly being de-emphasized in favor of biochemistry and molecular biology topics, but these changes largely won't come into effect until the 2015 revision.

The best way to prepare is having a really solid grounding in the subject areas covered. Get the official inventory of topics from AAMC's website and make sure you understand all of the topics. Then, use the official practice exams to form an idea about how high yield each topic is and how well you really understand them (reflected in the diagnostic report). This will give you a more targeted approach to your studying. Also, one of the unspoken truths about the BS section, is that it is rather physiology intensive. Take a physiology class if you can and preferentially over an upper level class in biochem or cell bio. You can do well without a formal course but make sure you have physiology down cold. It is very likely that you did not cover most of the topics in your intro bio class.

The almost unanimous consensus on these forums seems to be that physiology is largely absent from the MCAT these days, and that biochem and molecular genetics are heavily emphasized. However, what most people seem to be worried about is that the current BS section is claimed to be like a second verbal section in that it's largely dependent on passage-based reasoning rather than allowing you to get questions right based on prior knowledge.

I understand that EK is meant to give the reader the information in a very condensed form but do you think that you guys cut out too much information? There are times when I run into discrete questions in the practice AAMC BS sections that the book does not address. Ex. Which side of the heart has more muscle?

During those rare instances, I have to rely on my knowledge from undergrad to pull me through. Do you only recommend the company's books to someone who is fresh out of undergrad or is it accessible to people who do not have a strong foundation in the sciences?
That's not something that would be covered by most prep books I think, or if it is then it would be mentioned off-hand in a single sentence and would very likely be something you'd forget about. That kind of question is meant to test your conceptual knowledge of the circulatory system. The way you're supposed to answer the question is by knowing that the systemic circulation is much larger than the pulmonary circulation thus necessitating more force. This force would be generated by heart muscle, and as everyone intuitively knows bigger muscles = more force. Thus, the side of the heart with more muscle must be the side that delivers blood into the systemic circulation which would be the left ventricle.

It's this kind of mindset, the idea that BS is best prepared for by simple memorization of everything, that makes me wonder how reliable all these posters freaking out about the MCAT's "new" BS section are. Is it really the case that BS has changed to some hardcore reasoning exam absolutely no prep materials will prepare you for, or is it just the case that a lot of people are used to their bio exams being regurgitation exercises and are shell shocked when they encounter a test that requires critical thinking and conceptual knowledge instead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@OCDOCDOCD I think your assessment is quite correct. MCAT is as much a test of critical reasoning as it is a test of basic science knowledge. Many students are shocked when they do poorly despite having good grades in the corresponding classes. They believe that memorizing every little fact will ensure them success. This couldn't be further from the truth. You need to learn what I like to call MCAT logic. Our goal as a test prep company is to review the essential foundational information and then through practice problems give you the opportunity to apply it.
 
I don't know what to show for proof. Mods can message me if they need something specific.

I scored 97th percentile when I took the exam in 2010. I am editing the 8th edition of their biology and organic chemistry textbooks right now as well as working on a series of AAMC practice test review DVDs. I have taught both BS and PS for over a year in one-on-one and classroom settings. Ask me anything about the MCAT!

So 36 or 37, correct?
 
@muhali3 yes. I've been surprised how many people are able to deduce this. How did you do it if you don't mind me asking?
 
@muhali3 yes. I've been surprised how many people are able to deduce this. How did you do it if you don't mind me asking?
AAMC publishes the percentiles of MCAT scores since the scores are, in essence, just a coded way of indicating which percentile you were in. Off the top of my head:

25 = 50th percentile
30 = 75-80th percentile
33 = 90th percentile
36 = 95th percentile
38 = 99th percentile

If you scored 97th percentile it's easy to deduce you got a 37.
 
I took the test in 2011 and retook in 2012. I think it's just the luck of the draw, but the bio passages are definitely a little less straightforward. More so, the questions are less straightforward.

I think the idea that you should diagram reactions/etc in bio is a good one. It would have served me very well on the test. I have no idea why I didn't do it.

I want a do over on that passage haha.
 
@Emmerson I don't think this is true. I have taken all the AAMC practice exams and I think they accurately reflect both the content and difficulty of the real thing. It is true that organic is slowly being de-emphasized in favor of biochemistry and molecular biology topics, but these changes largely won't come into effect until the 2015 revision.

The best way to prepare is having a really solid grounding in the subject areas covered. Get the official inventory of topics from AAMC's website and make sure you understand all of the topics. Then, use the official practice exams to form an idea about how high yield each topic is and how well you really understand them (reflected in the diagnostic report). This will give you a more targeted approach to your studying. Also, one of the unspoken truths about the BS section, is that it is rather physiology intensive. Take a physiology class if you can and preferentially over an upper level class in biochem or cell bio. You can do well without a formal course but make sure you have physiology down cold. It is very likely that you did not cover most of the topics in your intro bio class.
NOT TRUE AT ALL. Since I had 3+ orgo passages on my MCAT. I am so glad i do organic chemistry research, am a chemistry major and love orgo. BTW since you took the MCAT in 2010 at the latest, I don't think you know what it is like CURRENTLY. 2010 is NOT current. 2012 IS. These people know what they are saying and so do I. Bio passages ARE NOT THE SAME.And don't say you want to be asked questions if you're going to dismiss them anyway (bio is different, trust us). I don't mean to sound insulting, but this is the truth: you do NOT know what a current mcat is like and we are telling you, so don't dismiss this.
 
Last edited:
@hopeful101 Your abrasive use of CAPSLOCK aside, you very well may have a point: I took the MCAT in 2010 which is not as recently as many of you. Nevertheless, I do MCAT related stuff as my full time job and am thus personally invested in keeping abreast of changes. I apologize if your preparation didn't adequately prepare you for your exam. I am sure that was frustrating. Good luck to you.
 
@hopeful101 Your abrasive use of CAPSLOCK aside, you very well may have a point: I took the MCAT in 2010 which is not as recently as many of you. Nevertheless, I do MCAT related stuff as my full time job and am thus personally invested in keeping abreast of changes. I apologize if your preparation didn't adequately prepare you for your exam. I am sure that was frustrating. Good luck to you.

I also don't think that one test can be made to feel representative of all of them.

The AAMC's emphasized different concepts, some had more orgo than others.
 
Well, I have to say I agree with people here who say the MCAT BS section has changed. I went through the entire EK subject pack (the one with the 5 books) and I think EK does a decent job with PS and VS, but not BS. This was surprising to me as I had heard the exact opposite--the EK was the best for bio but not so strong for PS. The MCAT goes well beyond what is covered in the book on BS. I can remember very specific examples, but I wont post them here for fear of violating the no-disclosure contract.

Apart from the actual content, the way in which the questions are so dependent on interpretation of the passage is also quite different from the practice afforded by EK and the AAMCAS practice CBTs.

Luckily, I was well prepared by my courses. I took the MCAT twice this year, the second time one month after the first before seeing the first's score (it's a long story...). I scored a 36 (11 in bio) on the first and a 39 on the second (15 in bio). All this to lend a bit of credibility to my opinion presented here.

By the way, why don't you sit for the MCAT again? My first MCAT BS was heavy on the physio, but the second had none I can recall right now and was very heavy on cell bio and biochem. There was a fair amount of advanced orgo in both--aldol level stuff--and very little from first semester orgo. I think a second sitting would help you see what others have been saying here.
 
Luckily, I was well prepared by my courses. I took the MCAT twice this year, the second time one month after the first before seeing the first's score (it's a long story...). I scored a 36 (11 in bio) on the first and a 39 on the second (15 in bio). All this to lend a bit of credibility to my opinion presented here.

Dude, you've got some serious balls retaking the MCAT after you got a 36. Most people wouldn't risk a retake even if they got a 30. It obviously worked out for you, but still...damn.

I'm curious though, what did you do in-between your first and second test to go from that 11 to 15 in BS?
 
@DocBBear First off, congratulations on your exceptional MCAT scores; they are really an impressive accomplishment! Second, I agree with @ridethecliche, despite being a standardized test, there is a substantial amount of variation between testing administrations. It does not surprise me at all that some tests are more organic chemistry intensive others more physiology intensive and still others biochem/mol. bio. Nevertheless, I reaffirm, based on all the AAMC practice exams, my own experience, and my students' experiences, that the MCAT tends to emphasize biology over organic chemistry. This is not always true but is a general trend.

Second, until this thread, I was unaware of the general sentiment that the biology section has be substantially "revised" in the last two years without AAMC informing anyone. That would be an alarming thing indeed. My view of BS, as with the entirety of MCAT, is that doing well depends on a balance of background knowledge, critical thinking skills, and time management. Undoubtably, some passages will require more rot memorization and others will emphasize critical appraisal of passage information. I think that is well reflected in the practice exams. Our books, and really any good MCAT prep materials, include a review of the high yield, foundational knowledge followed by passages that apply it in novel ways. Some passages are easier than the real thing while others are substantially harder. I think they are a good if not perfect preparation for the exam and many students have used EK and gone on to do very well on MCAT BS.

I do not have time nor am I eligible to take the MCAT again. I will start medical school in the Fall, which will become my full time responsibility. It's a good recommendation however
 
@medschoolappl, yes, I'd definitely agree there is overall less straight-up orgo than biology. While I cannot say for sure what the MCAT was like before this year, having never taken it, I was pretty caught unawares the first time how experiment-centered the passages were. I simply felt there was no preparation for this in the books I used.

Are you ineligible because you have been accepted into med school? (Congrats, by the way!) Just curious--I was unaware one ever became ineligible to take the take test.

@OCDOCDOCD, I was in a very unique situation with schedule constraints and I did not feel it went well the first time (obviously I was wrong...). I retook three days before my score from the first time was released. Funnily enough, I did very little bio in between the two tests...I took several final exams, and, most of all, had ten days in between those and the MCAT to sleep, exercise, and relax. The first time I took it was at the end of a long week of midterms and I was pretty exhausted. I think that was the biggest difference.
 
I can pull of the scores beyond my expectations on practice exams under exact simulated scenarios, yet when I take the real thing I don't even come close... I guess I just crack under pressure, any advice to fix that this time around?
 
I also don't think that one test can be made to feel representative of all of them.

I would assume one has to be representative of all of them, or else it wouldn't be standardized --in the literal definition of a standardized test.

But in the practical sense, you're probably correct.
 
@DocBBear According to AAMC, you must be planning on applying or in the process of applying to medical school in order to sit the MCAT. It is possible to obtain special permission to take it but it is granted on a case by case basis.
 
@Dman27 What you are describing is a somewhat severe form of text taking anxiety. What goes through your head while you are taking the real thing? If you are doing well on the practice exams under realistic conditions you probably have a sufficiently strong background and therefore have it in you to do well on the real thing. You need to figure out what's causing you to choke up you and address it.
 
NOT TRUE AT ALL. Since I had 3+ orgo passages on my MCAT. I am so glad i do organic chemistry research, am a chemistry major and love orgo. BTW since you took the MCAT in 2010 at the latest, I don't think you know what it is like CURRENTLY. 2010 is NOT current. 2012 IS. These people know what they are saying and so do I. Bio passages ARE NOT THE SAME.And don't say you want to be asked questions if you're going to dismiss them anyway (bio is different, trust us). I don't mean to sound insulting, but this is the truth: you do NOT know what a current mcat is like and we are telling you, so don't dismiss this.

Freak out much? Chill, honey, it's just a message board.
 
@Emmerson I don't think this is true. I have taken all the AAMC practice exams and I think they accurately reflect both the content and difficulty of the real thing. It is true that organic is slowly being de-emphasized in favor of biochemistry and molecular biology topics, but these changes largely won't come into effect until the 2015 revision.

The best way to prepare is having a really solid grounding in the subject areas covered. Get the official inventory of topics from AAMC's website and make sure you understand all of the topics. Then, use the official practice exams to form an idea about how high yield each topic is and how well you really understand them (reflected in the diagnostic report). This will give you a more targeted approach to your studying. Also, one of the unspoken truths about the BS section, is that it is rather physiology intensive. Take a physiology class if you can and preferentially over an upper level class in biochem or cell bio. You can do well without a formal course but make sure you have physiology down cold. It is very likely that you did not cover most of the topics in your intro bio class.

I didn't find this to be true at all. only AAMC 11 comes close to the real deal
 
thanks I've been thinking of trying some meditation techniques to get rid of anxiety, and I think my problem might be is that I rush on the exam because I always just make the time limit as it is... I'll try to practice more and more with full lengths
 
I have the 5th edition of EK. This edition is prior to the computer testing. Should I pick up the 9th edition or just the individual books for soc/psych?
 
Top