- Joined
- Jul 9, 2015
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 377
Hi All,
I just got my score back today, got 523 (131/130/130/132) 100th percentile
This was my second try. Last time I got 512 (128/127/126/131) 87th percentile
I wouldn't recommend retaking anything above a 510 unless you are extremely confident you can score higher (I was sick during my first test).
Also, PR practice tests are not representative. They may help you prepare, but don't be afraid if you score low on them. I sure did. I've heard they purposely deflate your score to make you think you need to take their classes. You can take a look at my full length practice exam scores in the order that I took them:
Next Step: 510, 512, 511, 510 (In order from 1-4)
AAMC: 513 (Practice Exam 1)
Princeton Review: 507 (free test that comes with book)
I took the PR test one week before my MCAT, and got 507....which was below my first score. In summary, Princeton Review is terrible, and don't get depressed because your scores are low -- it's not worth it. If you start to feel discouraged after a harsh practice score, just repeat after me, "Princeton Review sucks." Repeat it until it's true.
For inspiration, on the whiteboard in my bedroom, I wrote three messages:
1. Pain is temporary, MCAT is forever.
2. Feeling tired is just an illusion.
3. Goal: 520
I was working full-time and taking a summer class, but I studied every weekend. I studied way more my first time around, but I think the difference was studying smarter, not harder. Here was my general approach to each section and my overall approach.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL
For the chemical and physical component of the AAMC section bank, I took notes on every question (all 100 - took a whole day). I wrote the subject matter of the question (e.g. kinematics, equilibrium), the knowledge required to answer it, where the answer was (in passage, solving), what traps led me astray, and generally, anything that could have helped me answer it correctly. I went back and analyzed my own decision making (this was three days before my exam), and I really think it was this exercise that made all the difference.
For this section especially, the toughest part was getting used to guessing. Remember that the sections are graded on a curve. You don't need 100% to get a high score. Everyone gets some wrong. Recognize which questions those are and don't fret about them. During practice tests, I noticed that the questions I marked were always in line with the questions I got wrong. So if you mark a question, why spend the extra time if you know you typically get them wrong?
The actual test never required a complex equation of any sort, always simple stuff with 2 or 3 variables. Memorizing is less useful than developing skills. Practice practice practice.
CARS
I used the NextStep book of practice tests to study for this. It was pretty good, I think. I like the princeton review hyperlearning, but felt it was easier than the real thing. The EK style of how to approach this section was closest to my preference. Reading the Kaplan strategy was useful, at least for understanding the types of questions. Knowing what types of questions trip me up (analogy questions, or what topic would the next paragraph be about) was useful too, because I could allocate more time for them or skip them if I knew it was hopeless. Philosophy passages were the hardest for me, as were politics, so I would save those for last.
For CARS, being an avid reader or having majored in the humanities won't really help you get a better score. Understanding the different types of questions, and the ways the answer choices lead you astray is a good way to avoid incorrect choices. Out of scope or extreme answers are typically easy to spot and thinking about questions in terms of what answer the test maker is looking for can be more useful than what answer is logically correct.
For nearly every practice CARS section I took (nearly 20), I always scored within 125-128. Your practice score isn't important, it's about the learning. Try taking a few tests with double time, or doing five passages in 2 hours. Then switch to timed. Endurance matters, and timing matters too. I checked the clock after every passage, making sure I was on track throughout. I noticed there's usually one passage that's shorter with fewer questions that takes only 5-7 minutes (usually around passage 7 or 8) -- this was the case on the real thing for me too.
I didn't have any special strategy, like taking notes on passages or highlighting (though highlighting seems like it could have been useful if mastered).
I attribute the difference in my score to two things: endurance and experience. Taking practice tests prepared me to push through and force myself to think even when I was exhausted. And I had enough experience to recognize which questions I would get wrong and not even read the answer choices, just guess and go back if time allowed.
BIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL
This was the toughest section for me, especially because it was after lunch (postprandial state), and it was hard to focus. I finished with fifteen minutes to spare and barely used them, choosing instead to sit in a stupor with my head spinning. For me, endurance was the most important here.
Like the psych section, this one is heavily focused on experimentation. Knowledge was more important here than in the physics and chemistry section, but knowing how a change in the experiment could affect the result, or following the logic of why the experiment was being conducted is usually helpful.
Molecular Biology techniques is very helpful here. There were two questions on H-NMR and I'm confident that I missed both of them (an example of when knowledge matters).
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL
I was a psych major so this section was a breeze. My advice would be to skim the review book and not spend too much time on knowledge (which is what practice tests do. Even after scoring 131 my first time, I never got above 130 on practice tests. Usually got 127-128). Instead, watch a couple Khan videos before bed every night and soak in the general principles. Read popular experiments and focus on why they were conducted that way (Harlow monkeys, Stanford Prison, Milgrim obedience, etc.). What research question were the experimenters trying to answer and why did structuring their experiment in that method contribute to proving their point? This section is primarily about methodology (as is psychology).
There are some questions you can't prepare for. Things you never would have known about, nor would appear in study material for the MCAT. Roll with the punches, guess, and move on. I memorized a question that I had trouble with and looked it up after the test. I got it wrong. Still got 132. The point is that you will miss questions, so don't linger and waste time. Focus on questions that you could get right if you have more time to spend on them.
OVERALL
I used the Kaplan books and took notes on each chapter. I then took review notes on my notes, and then re-review notes on those notes. I ended up with a post-it note for each chapter of each book. When I took the test a second time, I only read my notes.
I took about 10 practice tests overall (PR, EK, Kaplan, AAMC, NS) and there are benefits and pitfalls for each one. None of them are representative.
In order from most representative to least (opinion): AAMC -> NS -> EK -> Kaplan -> PR
If I could go back, I would just use AAMC and NS. EK is good but expensive.
The actual MCAT that I took required very little knowledge about each subject, and was mostly a test of how you could reason through an experiment or a passage. This is the main way that the practice tests (even the AAMC section bank sometimes) is not representative, because there are a multitude of questions that ask for a piece of knowledge point blank. My actual MCAT often did not rely on being able to recognize vocabulary words. If I could go back, I would have spent a lot less time reading the review books and more time studying the AAMC section bank, sample test, and practice exam.
I would recommend going through the section bank very slowly, going through each question and analyzing the process required to answer the question correctly. Then, once you know you can get the majority correct without being timed, practice doing it quick and switch to timed tests.
Taking practice tests was key. For practice tests, I would mark on a piece of paper what I thought the answer was. If I was between two answers, like B and C and I thought B was better I would write "B > C." Then, when I went back, I could see what I thought of each answer, and see the logic behind my own decisions so that I could revise faulty logic. If you're between 2 answer choices a majority of the time, there's a problem. It usually means you aren't familiar enough with the types of questions that are being asked, and what kind of distracters are used to lead you away from the right answer.
For practice tests and the real thing, I used what I call 'the box method.' I drew a box on the bottom right hand corner of the scratch paper. I drew a line down the middle of the box. Then a second line down the middle of the right box. The result is three columns, with the leftmost being twice as wide as the other two. When I encountered a question I definitely would not get right, I put it in the right most column, guessed, and moved on without reading the answer choices (I'm serious). If the question was pretty hard and I didn't want to spend any more time, I put it in the middle column. As for the left column, which was the biggest, I put questions that I was pretty sure about but there was something holding me back from moving on. For these easier questions, there may have been a tempting answer choice or a sentence I didn't understand. Spending more time on these questions wasn't useful, as I rarely changed my answer. The purpose of this is to see which questions you are getting wrong on your practice tests so you can determine how to allocate your time. If I finished with extra time (usually 5-30 minutes depending on the section), I would do the left column first, the middle next, and the right last. So for those hard questions, I wrote the number of the question down as a way of letting go of that question. I was giving myself an opportunity to go back if time allowed, knowing that I probably wouldn't. The important part is letting go of any individual question, and allowing yourself to miss questions that you know you won't get right even if you tried.
As you can tell, timing was my biggest issue, that's why I had to use a system like this, to allow me to move on from easy questions with a strong grip on my attention, and to move on from hard questions I knew I would get wrong. I studied the same review books for both tests I took, so my knowledge of the subjects did not change at all. The major difference was my willingness to be wrong and to take a strategic approach that allowed me to maximize time spent on questions that I had the potential to get right and skip questions that I was going to miss no matter how much time I spent.
IN SUMMARY
Guess when you don't know the answer and move on. Timing is everything. Endurance is key (practice, practice, practice).
Reading review books is great, but the test involves more reasoning skills than blanket recall.
Once you've mastered the material, put down the review book. Take practice tests, slowly then quickly.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Edit:
In response to the many people that have messaged me, here is an FAQ.
#1. How much time was between your two tests?
One year. I studied for about two months for each test. For the second test, I was working and taking classes so I studied much less. But the difference was that I focused on taking more practice tests for my second try.
#2. Should I retake my 512?
I can't really answer this for you. Even if you were scoring higher on your practice tests, I wouldn't recommend it. I hesitate mostly because I don't know anyone who had a jump in scores like I did. For three people that reached out that told me they decided to retake and were willing to share their scores, all three were within 2 points of their original, one with a drop. For one of them, I spoke to them on the phone for over an hour explaining my reasoning for not retaking but to no avail.
At the same time, had someone told me not to retake, I likely wouldn't have, which would have precluded me from a much higher score. Still, though, the downsides of retaking coupled with the risk of not scoring much higher is far greater than the benefit of a higher score. Also, what you give up with another test is time spent doing meaningful things, like eating dinner with your father or volunteering your time to people who need it. I personally see no difference between a 520 and a 523. Especially at higher ranges, point differences become less meaningful. Own your 512; it's a great score.
As for admissions, there are often several rounds (though the exact process differs at each school). This was also explained by a UCSF adcom at an open talk I attended a few months back and by a Stanford adcom at the SUMMA conference. Round 1 is a screening, either computer or administrator that will take your highest, most recent, or average score. Round 2 is an individual reader(s) that are administrative or volunteer faculty that are recommended by the AAMC to use the average score. Round 3 is an admissions dean or an entire committee that makes a holistic decision that involves evaluating all scores and what they say about an applicant. Number of rounds and what consists of a round varies by school. Retaking and scoring marginally higher may help with Round 1, but likely be negligible at Round 2, and even detrimental at Round 3 if you are perceived as making poor decisions.
Apologies for the long rant, but this is the most frequent question I receive.
#3. What were your practice scores for your first test?
About 503-511. Second time around was 507-513. My strategy studying the second time was very different though. I focused a lot less on trying to obtain a high practice test score, and much more on understanding which questions I was getting wrong and how often I was getting stuck on certain questions (see box method explanation above).
#4. I've been trying to use your study plan but my score is not improving. What should I do?
Stop using my study plan. It won't work for everyone. My major pitfall was overthinking questions and refusing to let them go. As a result, I wasted time ruminating on what I couldn't solve rather than try to answer more questions, which resulted in not finishing on time.
#5. Did you study or memorize equations not listed in the AAMC outline?
The only equations I memorized are posted in the first page of this thread by a friendly user (because I'm some kind of special idiot that can't figure out how to post images). I call them my post-it notes, for the obvious reason that they are written on post-its.
#6. If you could go back, what practice tests would you have taken?
Just Nextstep and AAMC, including sample test and section banks. EK if you've got the cash. I felt that Kaplan and PR (and even the psych section for the AAMC section bank) were too content focused. Perhaps they were taking shortcuts? I felt there were more research and passage analysis questions on the actual exam.
#7 Is there a reference you could recommend that discusses typical distractors used in answer choices on how to spot them?
The Kaplan CARS and EK CARS methods both had a list of distractors. The EK method as a whole resonated more with me, but both had good ideas of traps. For me, taking a few practice tests very slowly and really analyzing why certain answer choices were better (even without reading the passage) really helped me hone in on what answer choices were created after the fact. Think of of it this way. Imagine the question and the answer stand alone. You are a test maker, and need to construct 3 'false' answers to accompany the correct one. What do you come up with?
I just got my score back today, got 523 (131/130/130/132) 100th percentile
This was my second try. Last time I got 512 (128/127/126/131) 87th percentile
I wouldn't recommend retaking anything above a 510 unless you are extremely confident you can score higher (I was sick during my first test).
Also, PR practice tests are not representative. They may help you prepare, but don't be afraid if you score low on them. I sure did. I've heard they purposely deflate your score to make you think you need to take their classes. You can take a look at my full length practice exam scores in the order that I took them:
Next Step: 510, 512, 511, 510 (In order from 1-4)
AAMC: 513 (Practice Exam 1)
Princeton Review: 507 (free test that comes with book)
I took the PR test one week before my MCAT, and got 507....which was below my first score. In summary, Princeton Review is terrible, and don't get depressed because your scores are low -- it's not worth it. If you start to feel discouraged after a harsh practice score, just repeat after me, "Princeton Review sucks." Repeat it until it's true.
For inspiration, on the whiteboard in my bedroom, I wrote three messages:
1. Pain is temporary, MCAT is forever.
2. Feeling tired is just an illusion.
3. Goal: 520
I was working full-time and taking a summer class, but I studied every weekend. I studied way more my first time around, but I think the difference was studying smarter, not harder. Here was my general approach to each section and my overall approach.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL
For the chemical and physical component of the AAMC section bank, I took notes on every question (all 100 - took a whole day). I wrote the subject matter of the question (e.g. kinematics, equilibrium), the knowledge required to answer it, where the answer was (in passage, solving), what traps led me astray, and generally, anything that could have helped me answer it correctly. I went back and analyzed my own decision making (this was three days before my exam), and I really think it was this exercise that made all the difference.
For this section especially, the toughest part was getting used to guessing. Remember that the sections are graded on a curve. You don't need 100% to get a high score. Everyone gets some wrong. Recognize which questions those are and don't fret about them. During practice tests, I noticed that the questions I marked were always in line with the questions I got wrong. So if you mark a question, why spend the extra time if you know you typically get them wrong?
The actual test never required a complex equation of any sort, always simple stuff with 2 or 3 variables. Memorizing is less useful than developing skills. Practice practice practice.
CARS
I used the NextStep book of practice tests to study for this. It was pretty good, I think. I like the princeton review hyperlearning, but felt it was easier than the real thing. The EK style of how to approach this section was closest to my preference. Reading the Kaplan strategy was useful, at least for understanding the types of questions. Knowing what types of questions trip me up (analogy questions, or what topic would the next paragraph be about) was useful too, because I could allocate more time for them or skip them if I knew it was hopeless. Philosophy passages were the hardest for me, as were politics, so I would save those for last.
For CARS, being an avid reader or having majored in the humanities won't really help you get a better score. Understanding the different types of questions, and the ways the answer choices lead you astray is a good way to avoid incorrect choices. Out of scope or extreme answers are typically easy to spot and thinking about questions in terms of what answer the test maker is looking for can be more useful than what answer is logically correct.
For nearly every practice CARS section I took (nearly 20), I always scored within 125-128. Your practice score isn't important, it's about the learning. Try taking a few tests with double time, or doing five passages in 2 hours. Then switch to timed. Endurance matters, and timing matters too. I checked the clock after every passage, making sure I was on track throughout. I noticed there's usually one passage that's shorter with fewer questions that takes only 5-7 minutes (usually around passage 7 or 8) -- this was the case on the real thing for me too.
I didn't have any special strategy, like taking notes on passages or highlighting (though highlighting seems like it could have been useful if mastered).
I attribute the difference in my score to two things: endurance and experience. Taking practice tests prepared me to push through and force myself to think even when I was exhausted. And I had enough experience to recognize which questions I would get wrong and not even read the answer choices, just guess and go back if time allowed.
BIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL
This was the toughest section for me, especially because it was after lunch (postprandial state), and it was hard to focus. I finished with fifteen minutes to spare and barely used them, choosing instead to sit in a stupor with my head spinning. For me, endurance was the most important here.
Like the psych section, this one is heavily focused on experimentation. Knowledge was more important here than in the physics and chemistry section, but knowing how a change in the experiment could affect the result, or following the logic of why the experiment was being conducted is usually helpful.
Molecular Biology techniques is very helpful here. There were two questions on H-NMR and I'm confident that I missed both of them (an example of when knowledge matters).
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL
I was a psych major so this section was a breeze. My advice would be to skim the review book and not spend too much time on knowledge (which is what practice tests do. Even after scoring 131 my first time, I never got above 130 on practice tests. Usually got 127-128). Instead, watch a couple Khan videos before bed every night and soak in the general principles. Read popular experiments and focus on why they were conducted that way (Harlow monkeys, Stanford Prison, Milgrim obedience, etc.). What research question were the experimenters trying to answer and why did structuring their experiment in that method contribute to proving their point? This section is primarily about methodology (as is psychology).
There are some questions you can't prepare for. Things you never would have known about, nor would appear in study material for the MCAT. Roll with the punches, guess, and move on. I memorized a question that I had trouble with and looked it up after the test. I got it wrong. Still got 132. The point is that you will miss questions, so don't linger and waste time. Focus on questions that you could get right if you have more time to spend on them.
OVERALL
I used the Kaplan books and took notes on each chapter. I then took review notes on my notes, and then re-review notes on those notes. I ended up with a post-it note for each chapter of each book. When I took the test a second time, I only read my notes.
I took about 10 practice tests overall (PR, EK, Kaplan, AAMC, NS) and there are benefits and pitfalls for each one. None of them are representative.
In order from most representative to least (opinion): AAMC -> NS -> EK -> Kaplan -> PR
If I could go back, I would just use AAMC and NS. EK is good but expensive.
The actual MCAT that I took required very little knowledge about each subject, and was mostly a test of how you could reason through an experiment or a passage. This is the main way that the practice tests (even the AAMC section bank sometimes) is not representative, because there are a multitude of questions that ask for a piece of knowledge point blank. My actual MCAT often did not rely on being able to recognize vocabulary words. If I could go back, I would have spent a lot less time reading the review books and more time studying the AAMC section bank, sample test, and practice exam.
I would recommend going through the section bank very slowly, going through each question and analyzing the process required to answer the question correctly. Then, once you know you can get the majority correct without being timed, practice doing it quick and switch to timed tests.
Taking practice tests was key. For practice tests, I would mark on a piece of paper what I thought the answer was. If I was between two answers, like B and C and I thought B was better I would write "B > C." Then, when I went back, I could see what I thought of each answer, and see the logic behind my own decisions so that I could revise faulty logic. If you're between 2 answer choices a majority of the time, there's a problem. It usually means you aren't familiar enough with the types of questions that are being asked, and what kind of distracters are used to lead you away from the right answer.
For practice tests and the real thing, I used what I call 'the box method.' I drew a box on the bottom right hand corner of the scratch paper. I drew a line down the middle of the box. Then a second line down the middle of the right box. The result is three columns, with the leftmost being twice as wide as the other two. When I encountered a question I definitely would not get right, I put it in the right most column, guessed, and moved on without reading the answer choices (I'm serious). If the question was pretty hard and I didn't want to spend any more time, I put it in the middle column. As for the left column, which was the biggest, I put questions that I was pretty sure about but there was something holding me back from moving on. For these easier questions, there may have been a tempting answer choice or a sentence I didn't understand. Spending more time on these questions wasn't useful, as I rarely changed my answer. The purpose of this is to see which questions you are getting wrong on your practice tests so you can determine how to allocate your time. If I finished with extra time (usually 5-30 minutes depending on the section), I would do the left column first, the middle next, and the right last. So for those hard questions, I wrote the number of the question down as a way of letting go of that question. I was giving myself an opportunity to go back if time allowed, knowing that I probably wouldn't. The important part is letting go of any individual question, and allowing yourself to miss questions that you know you won't get right even if you tried.
As you can tell, timing was my biggest issue, that's why I had to use a system like this, to allow me to move on from easy questions with a strong grip on my attention, and to move on from hard questions I knew I would get wrong. I studied the same review books for both tests I took, so my knowledge of the subjects did not change at all. The major difference was my willingness to be wrong and to take a strategic approach that allowed me to maximize time spent on questions that I had the potential to get right and skip questions that I was going to miss no matter how much time I spent.
IN SUMMARY
Guess when you don't know the answer and move on. Timing is everything. Endurance is key (practice, practice, practice).
Reading review books is great, but the test involves more reasoning skills than blanket recall.
Once you've mastered the material, put down the review book. Take practice tests, slowly then quickly.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Edit:
In response to the many people that have messaged me, here is an FAQ.
#1. How much time was between your two tests?
One year. I studied for about two months for each test. For the second test, I was working and taking classes so I studied much less. But the difference was that I focused on taking more practice tests for my second try.
#2. Should I retake my 512?
I can't really answer this for you. Even if you were scoring higher on your practice tests, I wouldn't recommend it. I hesitate mostly because I don't know anyone who had a jump in scores like I did. For three people that reached out that told me they decided to retake and were willing to share their scores, all three were within 2 points of their original, one with a drop. For one of them, I spoke to them on the phone for over an hour explaining my reasoning for not retaking but to no avail.
At the same time, had someone told me not to retake, I likely wouldn't have, which would have precluded me from a much higher score. Still, though, the downsides of retaking coupled with the risk of not scoring much higher is far greater than the benefit of a higher score. Also, what you give up with another test is time spent doing meaningful things, like eating dinner with your father or volunteering your time to people who need it. I personally see no difference between a 520 and a 523. Especially at higher ranges, point differences become less meaningful. Own your 512; it's a great score.
As for admissions, there are often several rounds (though the exact process differs at each school). This was also explained by a UCSF adcom at an open talk I attended a few months back and by a Stanford adcom at the SUMMA conference. Round 1 is a screening, either computer or administrator that will take your highest, most recent, or average score. Round 2 is an individual reader(s) that are administrative or volunteer faculty that are recommended by the AAMC to use the average score. Round 3 is an admissions dean or an entire committee that makes a holistic decision that involves evaluating all scores and what they say about an applicant. Number of rounds and what consists of a round varies by school. Retaking and scoring marginally higher may help with Round 1, but likely be negligible at Round 2, and even detrimental at Round 3 if you are perceived as making poor decisions.
Apologies for the long rant, but this is the most frequent question I receive.
#3. What were your practice scores for your first test?
About 503-511. Second time around was 507-513. My strategy studying the second time was very different though. I focused a lot less on trying to obtain a high practice test score, and much more on understanding which questions I was getting wrong and how often I was getting stuck on certain questions (see box method explanation above).
#4. I've been trying to use your study plan but my score is not improving. What should I do?
Stop using my study plan. It won't work for everyone. My major pitfall was overthinking questions and refusing to let them go. As a result, I wasted time ruminating on what I couldn't solve rather than try to answer more questions, which resulted in not finishing on time.
#5. Did you study or memorize equations not listed in the AAMC outline?
The only equations I memorized are posted in the first page of this thread by a friendly user (because I'm some kind of special idiot that can't figure out how to post images). I call them my post-it notes, for the obvious reason that they are written on post-its.
#6. If you could go back, what practice tests would you have taken?
Just Nextstep and AAMC, including sample test and section banks. EK if you've got the cash. I felt that Kaplan and PR (and even the psych section for the AAMC section bank) were too content focused. Perhaps they were taking shortcuts? I felt there were more research and passage analysis questions on the actual exam.
#7 Is there a reference you could recommend that discusses typical distractors used in answer choices on how to spot them?
The Kaplan CARS and EK CARS methods both had a list of distractors. The EK method as a whole resonated more with me, but both had good ideas of traps. For me, taking a few practice tests very slowly and really analyzing why certain answer choices were better (even without reading the passage) really helped me hone in on what answer choices were created after the fact. Think of of it this way. Imagine the question and the answer stand alone. You are a test maker, and need to construct 3 'false' answers to accompany the correct one. What do you come up with?
Last edited:
