Taking the New MCAT without second semester Physics and Sociology

[Cowabunga521]

Hi,

I'm trying to decide whether it is smart for me to take the MCAT this summer and to self study second semester physics and sociology. The benefits of me taking it this summer would be that I will get a whole 3 month's time with almost no other obligations to solely focus on the MCAT. While if I decide to take it after my Fall semester I might get a month and a half's worth of dedicated study time if even that. But I would have physics, sociology, and maybe even human physiology under my belt. Which would be the better option for me? How intensive are the questions on the MCAT be regarding sociology and physics 2?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mehc012]

The answer, as always for this genre of question (can I/should I take the MCAT without...) is:

You certainly can, but it is of course less advisable than being fully prepared.
Some may find success with this path. Others will not.
You should only attempt it if you feel capable of honestly evaluating which camp you fall into before taking the real deal.

This thread will likely fill with anecdotes supporting one version or the other, and giving (genuinely helpful) advice for how to attempt it, should you decide to try. But the above is what you should truly take to heart before making your decision.
Best of luck to you.

 

[DrHart]

I hate to say one option is better than another because everyone studies differently and tests differently. I will say that after taking the AAMC practice test, it seems that of the physics content, second semester material seems to come up more frequently (circuits, magnets, light, waves, radiation, etc.) than first semester material. I'm in sociology right now (taking the MCAT April 18) and it's been very helpful, but with dedicated study time you can get the jist of it. To be honest, having human physiology would probably help - although it isn't necessary.
At the end of the day it just depends on you and when you're applying.

I'll add this, and will probably take flak from some of the neurotic gunners, but you do not need three months of entirely uninterrupted study time as long as you've gotten good grades and paid attention in the pre-reqs. 8 hours a day for 3 months will be excessive (and you will get burnt out).
I started reviewing about 5 hours a week for several weeks for content review. For the last couple weeks I've been practicing passages and exams (~30 hours/week). This has all been during a 14 credit hour semester, 2 research positions, and a club leadership position.
But like I said - it depends on you - how comfortable you feel with/without taking a class.

 

[mehc012]

I hate to say one option is better than another because everyone studies differently and tests differently. I will say that after taking the AAMC practice test, it seems that of the physics content, second semester material seems to come up more frequently (circuits, magnets, light, waves, radiation, etc.) than first semester material. I'm in sociology right now (taking the MCAT April 18) and it's been very helpful, but with dedicated study time you can get the jist of it. To be honest, having human physiology would probably help - although it isn't necessary.
At the end of the day it just depends on you and when you're applying.

I'll add this, and will probably take flak from some of the neurotic gunners, but you do not need three months of entirely uninterrupted study time as long as you've gotten good grades and paid attention in the pre-reqs. 8 hours a day for 3 months will be excessive (and you will get burnt out).
I started reviewing about 5 hours a week for several weeks for content review. For the last couple weeks I've been practicing passages and exams (~30 hours/week). This has all been during a 14 credit hour semester, 2 research positions, and a club leadership position.
But like I said - it depends on you - how comfortable you feel with/without taking a class.

I concur on the uninterrupted part being overkill. I definitely took several months (4, I think), but I was working more than full-time during that, among other things. I took many many break days.

PS, side note: neurotic and gunner are not the same thing. I'd say that anyone trying to give genuine advice to others on how to do better is not playing the role of a gunner, no matter how neurotic and/or misguided they may be!

 

[DrHart]

PS, side note: neurotic and gunner are not the same thing. I'd say that anyone trying to give genuine advice to others on how to do better is not playing the role of a gunner, no matter how neurotic and/or misguided they may be!

It's a matter of semantics I suppose. Although a neurotic gunner is only one thing. Adj + noun. neurotic, unbalanced; gunner, overly ambitious/competitive. I'm entirely certain that those who fit that description would argue against my point. All I'm saying is that those who would pick that bone with me are a little too deep in left field

 

[mehc012]

It's a matter of semantics I suppose. Although a neurotic gunner is only one thing. Adj + noun. neurotic, unbalanced; gunner, overly ambitious/competitive. I'm entirely certain that those who fit that description would argue against my point. All I'm saying is that those who would pick that bone with me are a little too deep in left field

Right, I'm just saying that in order to qualify as 'gunner', those people would be arguing against you because they thought your advice was good and they want to sabotage people.
The guy earnestly trying to give advice from wayyyy out in left field is just neurotic and/or misguided.

Basically, I disagree with the bolded definition. Ambition may cause someone to become a gunner, but it by itself does not make one.

 

[DrHart]

Tomato tomáto if you ask me. A gunner doesn't have to sabotage people to be a gunner. Like I said, semantics - not worth arguing over

 

[mehc012]

Tomato tomáto if you ask me. A gunner doesn't have to sabotage people to be a gunner. Like I said, semantics - not worth arguing over

Disagree that it's semantics. Sabotaging other people is the defining feature of a gunner. It's like calling someone who breaks into people's houses, sneaks around, then leaves without ever taking anything a thief. Sure, it may look the same to the neighbor, but if the guy never partakes in the essential act of thievery, no amount of outward similarity suffices to name him a thief.

Agreed that it's not worth arguing over further. I shall post no more on the subject here! I am sorry that I mentioned it and derailed things. I suppose that even the 1000th iteration of a near-identical thread should be allowed to run its natural course.

 

[Bermie]

Considering you will probably get only anecdotal advice, I will leave mine. I did the MCAT without second semester physics and I scored competitively on PS section. I actually think physics might be the easiest section of the MCAT to do without actually taking the class. This is completely my opinion and my experience with the 2014 version of the MCAT. In general, my advice is if you have prepared than the earlier the better. It was such a relief to get it out of the way and not have to worry about it right before applying. Also, I don't think you need 3 months fully committed to the MCAT. If you have a semi-lighter course load and devote several hours a week you will be fine.

 

[DrHart]

Disagree that it's semantics. Sabotaging other people is the defining feature of a gunner. It's like calling someone who breaks into people's houses, sneaks around, then leaves without ever taking anything a thief. Sure, it may look the same to the neighbor, but if the guy never partakes in the essential act of thievery, no amount of outward similarity suffices to name him a thief.

Agreed that it's not worth arguing over further. I shall post no more on the subject here! I am sorry that I mentioned it and derailed things. I suppose that even the 1000th iteration of a near-identical thread should be allowed to run its natural course.

Gunner: A person who is competitive,overly-ambitious and substantially exceeds minimum requirements. A gunner will compromise his/her peer relationships and/or reputation among peers in order to obtain recognition and praise from his/her superiors.
That chic in the front row of our class who always raises her hand, takes on additional assignments, and wrote a 25 page answer on our final when all that was required was 10 pages is such a gunner.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gunner) compromising relationships =/= sabotaging

gunner: a pre-med or medical student who is ambitious to a fault. They often throw other students under the bus, put their accomplishments and grades on display, and generally make life miserable for any student who they perceive to be a threat to their own success.
(http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/03/avoid-gunner-medical-school.html) While sabotage is something a gunner may do, it isn't the defining characteristic

The fact that we are arguing over the meaning of a word most certainly means that this is based on semantics. That is what semantics is.
All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. All gunners are overly ambitious/competitive but not all gunners sabotage their peers.

*I should also add that while your definition may be different than mine, neither is incorrect. SDN tends to polarize concepts like "the gunner." So your experience on this site may lead you to believe that gunners are the scum of the earth and partake in everything from sabotaging their peers to plotting the destruction of your life's work. According to other definitions (outside of SDN), they aren't as terrible. Both are opinionated definitions and arguing which is more correct is purely semantic.

 

[mehc012]

Gunner: A person who is competitive,overly-ambitious and substantially exceeds minimum requirements. A gunner will compromise his/her peer relationships and/or reputation among peers in order to obtain recognition and praise from his/her superiors.
That chic in the front row of our class who always raises her hand, takes on additional assignments, and wrote a 25 page answer on our final when all that was required was 10 pages is such a gunner.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gunner) compromising relationships =/= sabotaging

gunner: a pre-med or medical student who is ambitious to a fault. They often throw other students under the bus, put their accomplishments and grades on display, and generally make life miserable for any student who they perceive to be a threat to their own success.
(http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/03/avoid-gunner-medical-school.html) While sabotage is something a gunner may do, it isn't the defining characteristic

The fact that we are arguing over the meaning of a word most certainly means that this is based on semantics. That is what semantics is.
All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. All gunners are overly ambitious/competitive but not all gunners sabotage their peers.

*I should also add that while your definition may be different than mine, neither is incorrect. SDN tends to polarize concepts like "the gunner." So your experience on this site may lead you to believe that gunners are the scum of the earth and partake in everything from sabotaging their peers to plotting the destruction of your life's work. According to other definitions (outside of SDN), they aren't as terrible. Both are opinionated definitions and arguing which is more correct is purely semantic.

As I said, I will not argue this further, though I still disagree with you (imo, a gunner guns down their peers). My apologies for going down this road in the first place.
I absolutely concede the semantics bit. That was just a brainfart on my part, lol.

 

[dl8001]

The info in the practice books should be more than enough for socio. Intro to socio is very self explanatory subject . I did a minor is socio and its literally what's we visually see outside and how society works. Hope that helps