I just wrote my MCAT on the 23rd. I was planning to write a detailed review of the experience and my study schedule, but I'm a little too lazy so here are some random important points I would like to point out:
1) When I first planned my schedule, I noticed everybody said Kaplan was not good for psych/soc as it lacked a lot of information. Accordingly, I bought the book historically known to put too much information: TPR. After finishing TPR, to my surprise, I realized I haven't heard of so many terms on the AAMC psych/soc section bank, and I also realized that I often quickly recognize the theory or concept a given question is talking about and I'm all excited that I remember it, but then I can not answer the question because TPR barely mentioned the topic to ensure it doesn't miss it but didn't really elaborate at all on it.
So, given the time constraint, I went back and read Kaplan—the only other book in my possession—in one day a couple of days before the MCAT. Here is what I found: Kaplan includes about 99% of the information in TPR and adds onto it whatever it missed. TPR was extremely lacking in the biological foundations (i.e. sensory stuff, neuroanatomy, etc.). Kaplan has MUCH MUCH better explanations for theories (e.g. theories of emotion, etc.). Kaplan has MUCH MUCH MUCH better grammar/style than TPR, with a special emphasis on the addenda they added, which were clearly more rushed than an essay I wrote 3 hours before it was due in grade 9. Bottom line is: Kaplan seems to have fixed their second edition making it really good, but I still recommend you skim through TPR after finishing Kaplan because I feel perhaps 1% of the stuff was better explained there. On the actual MCAT, I was able to recognize all terms, of which a significant portion was not on TPR. Also, I noticed I didn't really have to know any names of psychologists or sociologists, the question typically gives you context anyway. But I would know the big names (e.g. Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, Eriksson, etc. etc.)
2) The AAMC scored practice test, not the sample one (I didn't do this one), was in my opinion a lot easier than the real thing. People were saying the AAMC section banks recently released were harder than the real thing because they were trying to show us where the MCAT is headed; but well... some news for you.. No, the section banks were probably the most representative. I thought the scored practice physical and biological sections were a lot easier than the real thing. The behavioral section was probably a little easier on the real thing though, I even noticed they had some logic issues in the questions making it very easy to answer them (i.e. identical logic rephrased in two choices, but this wasn't just on the behavioral section). The CARS section was weird, because from the old MCAT I was used to getting passages in some alien language with an extremely convoluted style of writing, but on this new MCAT I noticed I actually understood all the passages in depth without coming across many unfamiliar words, BUT the questions were extraordinarily difficult; makes you wonder if you understood the passage at all. Overall though, I found CARS easier than the old MCAT verbal and on par with the scored practice.
For some context, I got a 28 (10 PS /10 BS/8 VR) on the old MCAT and a 95th percentile (99 PS, 97 BS, 93 Beh, 70 CARS) on the scored practice. The real thing, I guess I'll know soon enough.
3) In my opinion, how should you study?
- I was a Physiology Specialist in my undergrad at one of the largest research powerhouses in North America, yet I found the biological section the hardest section of them all. Why? Because it was like reading a paper from Cell in under a 2 minutes and being able to criticize their already good methodology. Bottom line, don't just ensure you are familiar with research, ensure you can read critically as if you're the professor and the author is a student of yours (Ask yourself questions like why the hell didn't they control for this variable? Well their results are cool, but it seems the next most logical step in the research is to do this and that, how should I go about doing this?). Also, when you read such papers (btw Cell is a good practice journal because it actually has overly-condensed information with stuffy figures), try to understand the figures without reading the caption or understanding the methodology. This is because on the MCAT I noticed they sometimes give you graphs and they don't even explain what the axes mean especially given that it's a technology you likely never heard of before. A logical corollary is to actually know common methods inside out (SDS-PAGE, all direction blots, immunohistochem, circular dichroism, mass spec, NMR, etc.); inside out means know them like you've actually done them in a lab. I would actually think biochemistry courses with a significant lab component should be prereqs to the MCAT. I don't need to tell you to know your amino acids, because I'm sure you realize they're your alphabet at this point. But also know your DNA bases (yes know exactly which atoms form the hydrogen bonds, which ones are acceptors which ones are donors, etc.) and sugars.
- For the behavioral section, I really can't tell you much except I predict it will get a lot harder very soon. This is because it won't take them long to realize the huge disparity between the intellectual skills required to succeed in it versus the other sections. Therefore, don't just memorize and understand the theories, make sure you're fluent with at least some ethics and all of research logic (e.g. confounding and lurking variables, dependence, correlation, types of studies like case-studies, longitudinal, ethnographic, etc.).
- For the physical section. Well... Do NOT underestimate organic chemistry, I had one alright orgo passage but another hardcore one. I stupidly enough spent almost 10 minutes on ONE question and then barely finished the section on time, must have been brain dead to not feel the time. The questions were oriented at ensuring you understand what goes between the intermediates. I.e. general nucleophile/electrophile mechanisms.
- For practice, I unfortunately caught a cold towards the end and didn't do most of what I had planned. But generally, I know some people like to practice with random stuff to be ready to use the real AAMC questions and get truly reflective results, but don't.. I ended up missing a lot of the AAMC stuff. Neither Kaplan, nor TPR, nor Khan Academy had anything even remotely close to the real thing at least relative to the AAMC material. Khan Academy was the least representative. EK, as usual, had the best CARS passages. One thing I noticed though is that the MCAT question packs (those that were selected from previous old MCAT exams) were not really representative and focused more on content than skills, which is reversed on the new MCAT.
I apologize if my advice is scattered all over the place, I guess I'm still in the PTSD phase after the exam (which almost short circuited my brain in the BS section). Feel free to ask me questions, but take everything I say with a grain of salt given that my scores still didn't come out. One last thought, I initially planned to study from September to mid-Janurary, but being the procrastinator that I am, well I started probably mid-October and was VERY slow in the beginning. Essentially, I spent less than 2 months studying (6-12 hours per day).
1) When I first planned my schedule, I noticed everybody said Kaplan was not good for psych/soc as it lacked a lot of information. Accordingly, I bought the book historically known to put too much information: TPR. After finishing TPR, to my surprise, I realized I haven't heard of so many terms on the AAMC psych/soc section bank, and I also realized that I often quickly recognize the theory or concept a given question is talking about and I'm all excited that I remember it, but then I can not answer the question because TPR barely mentioned the topic to ensure it doesn't miss it but didn't really elaborate at all on it.
So, given the time constraint, I went back and read Kaplan—the only other book in my possession—in one day a couple of days before the MCAT. Here is what I found: Kaplan includes about 99% of the information in TPR and adds onto it whatever it missed. TPR was extremely lacking in the biological foundations (i.e. sensory stuff, neuroanatomy, etc.). Kaplan has MUCH MUCH better explanations for theories (e.g. theories of emotion, etc.). Kaplan has MUCH MUCH MUCH better grammar/style than TPR, with a special emphasis on the addenda they added, which were clearly more rushed than an essay I wrote 3 hours before it was due in grade 9. Bottom line is: Kaplan seems to have fixed their second edition making it really good, but I still recommend you skim through TPR after finishing Kaplan because I feel perhaps 1% of the stuff was better explained there. On the actual MCAT, I was able to recognize all terms, of which a significant portion was not on TPR. Also, I noticed I didn't really have to know any names of psychologists or sociologists, the question typically gives you context anyway. But I would know the big names (e.g. Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, Eriksson, etc. etc.)
2) The AAMC scored practice test, not the sample one (I didn't do this one), was in my opinion a lot easier than the real thing. People were saying the AAMC section banks recently released were harder than the real thing because they were trying to show us where the MCAT is headed; but well... some news for you.. No, the section banks were probably the most representative. I thought the scored practice physical and biological sections were a lot easier than the real thing. The behavioral section was probably a little easier on the real thing though, I even noticed they had some logic issues in the questions making it very easy to answer them (i.e. identical logic rephrased in two choices, but this wasn't just on the behavioral section). The CARS section was weird, because from the old MCAT I was used to getting passages in some alien language with an extremely convoluted style of writing, but on this new MCAT I noticed I actually understood all the passages in depth without coming across many unfamiliar words, BUT the questions were extraordinarily difficult; makes you wonder if you understood the passage at all. Overall though, I found CARS easier than the old MCAT verbal and on par with the scored practice.
For some context, I got a 28 (10 PS /10 BS/8 VR) on the old MCAT and a 95th percentile (99 PS, 97 BS, 93 Beh, 70 CARS) on the scored practice. The real thing, I guess I'll know soon enough.
3) In my opinion, how should you study?
- I was a Physiology Specialist in my undergrad at one of the largest research powerhouses in North America, yet I found the biological section the hardest section of them all. Why? Because it was like reading a paper from Cell in under a 2 minutes and being able to criticize their already good methodology. Bottom line, don't just ensure you are familiar with research, ensure you can read critically as if you're the professor and the author is a student of yours (Ask yourself questions like why the hell didn't they control for this variable? Well their results are cool, but it seems the next most logical step in the research is to do this and that, how should I go about doing this?). Also, when you read such papers (btw Cell is a good practice journal because it actually has overly-condensed information with stuffy figures), try to understand the figures without reading the caption or understanding the methodology. This is because on the MCAT I noticed they sometimes give you graphs and they don't even explain what the axes mean especially given that it's a technology you likely never heard of before. A logical corollary is to actually know common methods inside out (SDS-PAGE, all direction blots, immunohistochem, circular dichroism, mass spec, NMR, etc.); inside out means know them like you've actually done them in a lab. I would actually think biochemistry courses with a significant lab component should be prereqs to the MCAT. I don't need to tell you to know your amino acids, because I'm sure you realize they're your alphabet at this point. But also know your DNA bases (yes know exactly which atoms form the hydrogen bonds, which ones are acceptors which ones are donors, etc.) and sugars.
- For the behavioral section, I really can't tell you much except I predict it will get a lot harder very soon. This is because it won't take them long to realize the huge disparity between the intellectual skills required to succeed in it versus the other sections. Therefore, don't just memorize and understand the theories, make sure you're fluent with at least some ethics and all of research logic (e.g. confounding and lurking variables, dependence, correlation, types of studies like case-studies, longitudinal, ethnographic, etc.).
- For the physical section. Well... Do NOT underestimate organic chemistry, I had one alright orgo passage but another hardcore one. I stupidly enough spent almost 10 minutes on ONE question and then barely finished the section on time, must have been brain dead to not feel the time. The questions were oriented at ensuring you understand what goes between the intermediates. I.e. general nucleophile/electrophile mechanisms.
- For practice, I unfortunately caught a cold towards the end and didn't do most of what I had planned. But generally, I know some people like to practice with random stuff to be ready to use the real AAMC questions and get truly reflective results, but don't.. I ended up missing a lot of the AAMC stuff. Neither Kaplan, nor TPR, nor Khan Academy had anything even remotely close to the real thing at least relative to the AAMC material. Khan Academy was the least representative. EK, as usual, had the best CARS passages. One thing I noticed though is that the MCAT question packs (those that were selected from previous old MCAT exams) were not really representative and focused more on content than skills, which is reversed on the new MCAT.
I apologize if my advice is scattered all over the place, I guess I'm still in the PTSD phase after the exam (which almost short circuited my brain in the BS section). Feel free to ask me questions, but take everything I say with a grain of salt given that my scores still didn't come out. One last thought, I initially planned to study from September to mid-Janurary, but being the procrastinator that I am, well I started probably mid-October and was VERY slow in the beginning. Essentially, I spent less than 2 months studying (6-12 hours per day).
