I'm consistently scoring higher on the Gold Standard BS section compared to the AAMC BS section

[LuluLovesMe]

So far for the AAMC tests, I've taken 3 and gotten 10's in all 3 of them for BS. For Gold Standard, I've taken 5 and gotten 12's in all of them for BS.

From everything I've heard, Gold standard is supposed to be harder than AAMC. What might this be indicative of? Also how can I best improve my score?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Uafl112]

Gold Standard also inflated my bio score when I took that section

 

[athlete1003]

In contrast to you, my GS bio scores were around my AAMC bio scores.However, after taking the MCAT, in my opinion the style of GS is not representative of the MCAT at all. I would just keep practicing with the practice AAMC exams. Buy the Self-Assessment package for bio for extra practice (but be aware that some of the questions in SA show up in the practice exams. So I would take the SA after doing your practice exams so you don't skew your scores). I also thought the Princeton Science Workbook was great practice for BS! Reviewing my answers really helped, so don't skip out on that step.

 

[Gauss44]

So far for the AAMC tests, I've taken 3 and gotten 10's in all 3 of them for BS. For Gold Standard, I've taken 5 and gotten 12's in all of them for BS.

From everything I've heard, Gold standard is supposed to be harder than AAMC. What might this be indicative of? Also how can I best improve my score?

It might be indicative of AAMC's style. In my experience, AAMC's biological sciences has a greater abundance of long dense semi-sophisticated passages and you have to pay close attention to how AAMC deliberately words some questions.

 

[Doug Underhill]

AAMC 10 and 11 are very, very representative of how the actual BS section on the MCAT is. If you're scoring differently on GS from AAMC10/11, view the GS scores with caution.

 

[NextStepTutor_1]

The GS practice tests, in my opinion, can be more calculation heavy, which is far more represented in the PS section.
Overall, whether we're talking about GS or Kaplan or any other company, I'd be cautious when giving too much credit to scores from practice test that aren't from the AAMC. It's not that taking those outside tests aren't good practice, it is, but they are all different than the AAMC tests, which are the most representative of the real deal, and so the score you receive is naturally not as representative as the score you get on an AAMC practice test in terms of what score you could expect on the real deal.
In terms of maximizing the learning experience whilst reviewing your tests - review the question stems (how did you think about them/interpret them?), go over both right and wrong questions, and ideally try to get inside the mind of the test maker (this means look for trends, recycled language, high yield content, etc.).

 

[benjaminl1nus]

gs tests are completely different than aamc tests. there is really no comparison since they are both structured differently. therefore, you will have people who score lower on gs than aamc, people who score the same, and people who score higher on gs than aamc. the only reliable predictor is the aamc tests...i don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding that.

 

[Doug Underhill]

The GS practice tests, in my opinion, can be more calculation heavy, which is far more represented in the PS section.

Even the new PS sections aren't terribly calculation heavy. They have become much more about integrating 2-3 concepts in physical sciences. I think the number of calculation problems on my recent MCAT was in the single digits. The only calculation problem on AAMC tests for BS is Hardy-Weinberg, which you do need to know.

 

[mnhockey7]

Benjaminl1nus: I completely agree with you in the fact that the AAMC tests are the only real predictor of your actual score. For example... I took a kaplan test the other day, got an 8 on PS and only got like 23 questions right because some of the questions were outrageously difficult, etc.. way off in my opinion.

Did anyone feel, although the GS PS is great practice... some of the concepts/knowledge/amount of calculations in the given amount of time, is much beyond what we would be expected to do for the real deal? Or is it that the questions and passages are just not even compareble as well as poorly written compared to the AAMC's and real MCAT?

 

[ConfusedChemist]

So far for the AAMC tests, I've taken 3 and gotten 10's in all 3 of them for BS. For Gold Standard, I've taken 5 and gotten 12's in all of them for BS.

From everything I've heard, Gold standard is supposed to be harder than AAMC. What might this be indicative of? Also how can I best improve my score?

I thought they were harder
But I actually just loved the GS tests for PS. I know they are way more calcuation heavy, but I thought they were super comprehensive and made me way quicker when I got calc. questions on the MCAT (i.e. each test covered most topics) and helped me go from a 8 to a 12 on my actually mcat for PS! But I thought verbal was a bit usless for them