Yeah...I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume that because we took it in April, we were rushing into this and not fully thinking things through (which is what your post implies).
I had studied for the old MCAT and planned to take it in January, but I am much stronger in bio/biochem/psych and weaker in gen chem and physics. The new test plus an extra 3 months to study made the most sense to me, especially because if I needed to retake after January I would be studying for this new test anyway. I am applying this cycle and wanted my application submitted early. Taking the test in May gives you no leg-up on April MCAT test takers, as you have the same amount of released material to work with. This was a very well thought-out decision on my part, and I do not regret testing in April, nor do I think it's wise to delay taking the MCAT just because you don't want to be first. Actually, I think delaying for solely that reason is pretty foolish and if you're that afraid of a test, you probably shouldn't be going into such a rigorous career.
Sorry if that's harsh, but I'm really tired of non-April tester posting on this thread that we are the unfortunate guinea pigs, we're "taking one for the team", and that people feel so sorry for us. Lol what? It's a standardized test.
Taking the old MCAT would have theoretically been a superior decision for anyone who had that option. If you only had a month to study for it, though, it wasn't really an option (unless you felt rock solid by a the cancellation deadline); perhaps that was your situation, I'm not sure. As for those arguing they need to take it in order to apply this cycle, this was what I was referring to as "rushing." You can take time if you need to in order to wait for better preparatory materials/more information to come out for this test. If a gap year results, so be it. This is all to say that the time sacrifice is worth the superior score. However, if you are not dead-set on MD schools, and knew you could get a DO-level score on the test, then sure - take it. Personally, I'd prefer an MD school, and I could guarantee no one right now that I would do better than 80th percentile on this test. I don't know precisely what is desired, particularly because their outline contains a significant amount of vagueness, which means it is possible that questions can range from broad simplicity to the tiniest minutia. You see, the issue is that the differences between students here is not how well they focused their studies to the required content knowledge/testing strategies. There is no data suggesting that those who did a ton of prep company FL practice will do any better than someone who only did the AAMC official. In essence, one who practices more may have spent a significant amount of time practicing the wrong things, while another who practiced less but happened to focus on the right things (through no greater knowledge of the test because that knowledge is not currently available) will be at an advantage. The difference is no longer how well you studied the exam itself, and what it is known to want out of you. The difference is simply in the content study decisions, as well as academic background. Does this lend itself to providing high scores to those that sit down and focus on preparing for the test in a strategic way, zoning in on what is known to be high yield? It can't any longer, because no strategy is currently supported with score data.
I agree, May is not a superior decision. I'm sorry if I implied that, although I did think it was relatively obvious to those that know when grades will be released (i.e. test takers such as yourself, which was the audience I was addressing). As far as "being first," that is not the issue in and of itself. You know the issue is all of the uncertainty that comes with being first. It's not an ideal situation for giving yourself the best theoretical chance of scoring in the highest brackets of the competition.
I don't feel sorry for anyone. You're all adults that made a decision; I'm assuming you had reasons that made sense to you, which is why I asked what those were. The test is standardized, but it is no longer providing an advantage to those who have a plan of study which is perfectly focused on what is known to be tested. No one knows exactly what is tested anymore; there isn't decades of data to back up claims of knowing. This is the difference that makes me unwilling to take it so soon.
All that said: if this sort of situation works for you, and you know you can thrive in it, then of course you made the correct decision. It's possible individuals such as myself are overthinking things, and studying properly is merely a matter of making sure you know every bit of that possible minutia in a given subtopic of a given subject. Maybe scoring 80th percentile is just as doable (maybe moreso!) than before. I'm just saying I don't know right now. And yes, it frightens me somewhat. Having data will allow me to know which courses of action (on average) are the best for preparation, which will make for studying with a higher yield. This is my minimum requirement before taking on the exam.
On a side note, if I can ask another question: how are you able to put in an adequate amount of time for study during your semester? What were your specific circumstances and how did you work around them? Again, just interested. No offense meant.
