2015 MCAT Practice Test PS section for OLD MCAT

[cafeverona]

Has anyone taken the Chemical and Physical section of the MCAT 2015 and found it to be very helpful/indicative of PS on AAMC practice exams/indicative of PS on the old MCAT?

I've only taken the VB equivalent on the new test, and it's very accurate in comparison to the old VB.

I'm trying to take more comprehensive PS sections, because I know there's going to be some on my upcoming MCAT.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cafeverona]

Bump. Anyone?

 

[connie95]

Has anyone taken the Chemical and Physical section of the MCAT 2015 and found it to be very helpful/indicative of PS on AAMC practice exams/indicative of PS on the old MCAT?

I've only taken the VB equivalent on the new test, and it's very accurate in comparison to the old VB.

I'm trying to take more comprehensive PS sections, because I know there's going to be some on my upcoming MCAT.

Wait…are you saying the verbal was very similar to the old verbal? So it would be sufficient to just practice new MCAT stuff with old verbal materials right? Also, did the verbal passages seem shorter?

 

[NextStepTutor_3]

If you're taking the old / "current" MCAT, I assume you have a January test date (good luck, by the way!). I wouldn't take any "new" MCAT science sections for practice, mainly since the 2015 MCAT has a very different Physical Sciences section from the current test. Technically it isn't even PS anymore - it's Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems or something like that - not that the name really matters!

The real problem is that the new PS section is around 25% biochem, with some bio and ochem thrown in too. Since those subjects aren't even on the current PS test, your score might be artificially lower than you expect and not mean anything. Even worse, you might be tempted to review some concepts that you don't even need to know during these last few important weeks.

Also, which practice 2015 MCAT verbal section did you take? Just curious

 

[cafeverona]

If you're taking the old / "current" MCAT, I assume you have a January test date (good luck, by the way!). I wouldn't take any "new" MCAT science sections for practice, mainly since the 2015 MCAT has a very different Physical Sciences section from the current test. Technically it isn't even PS anymore - it's Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems or something like that - not that the name really matters!

The real problem is that the new PS section is around 25% biochem, with some bio and ochem thrown in too. Since those subjects aren't even on the current PS test, your score might be artificially lower than you expect and not mean anything. Even worse, you might be tempted to review some concepts that you don't even need to know during these last few important weeks.

Also, which practice 2015 MCAT verbal section did you take? Just curious

Ok thank you! That narrows down my studying a bit. Oh I'm referring to the AAMC 2015 Practice MCAT (Critical Reasoning section or whatever it's being called now). Yes my test is next week!

 

[cafeverona]

Wait…are you saying the verbal was very similar to the old verbal? So it would be sufficient to just practice new MCAT stuff with old verbal materials right? Also, did the verbal passages seem shorter?

If you're prepping for the new MCAT, I would DEFINITELY use all the old VB resources. Buy all the tests now because they expire this month. Also get the VB SA. If you're trying to mimic your test, practice with 9 passages and throw out any natural science passages, as that won't be on the new MCAT.

 

[connie95]

If you're taking the old / "current" MCAT, I assume you have a January test date (good luck, by the way!). I wouldn't take any "new" MCAT science sections for practice, mainly since the 2015 MCAT has a very different Physical Sciences section from the current test. Technically it isn't even PS anymore - it's Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems or something like that - not that the name really matters!

The real problem is that the new PS section is around 25% biochem, with some bio and ochem thrown in too. Since those subjects aren't even on the current PS test, your score might be artificially lower than you expect and not mean anything. Even worse, you might be tempted to review some concepts that you don't even need to know during these last few important weeks.

Also, which practice 2015 MCAT verbal section did you take? Just curious

Have you taken the new official AAMC MCAT btw? If someone knows all the content for biochem, ochem, gen chem etc would you say the new PS section will be manageable? Or will it still be harder than the old MCAT due to extensive manipulation/critical thinking skills required? I'm trying to get at least a 90th percentile on the new test! I will learn all the content and make sure I understand every bit...But if AAMC makes it super hard in terms of critical thinking/analysis skills required, idk how to prepare…those are usually skills students have innately

 

[connie95]

If you're prepping for the new MCAT, I would DEFINITELY use all the old VB resources. Buy all the tests now because they expire this month. Also get the VB SA. If you're trying to mimic your test, practice with 9 passages and throw out any natural science passages, as that won't be on the new MCAT.

Okay, thank you! Did you feel that the passages on the new test were shorter by any chance? Or did they have less questions?

 

[cafeverona]

Okay, thank you! Did you feel that the passages on the new test were shorter by any chance? Or did they have less questions?

I only did VB and the length of those passages seemed to be the same. Maybe a bit shorter, I'm not sure

 

[somuchwater]

Is there place to review and discuss this? For example,

Passage 2: What do we need to measure a current?

We need voltage and resistance right?

The answer choices are basically C) potential resistivity and radius vs D) potential resistivity and length. I figured b/c it's an axon we know the length but need to know the radius. Why is it D)?

Also , for the Celecoxib passage, why is compound 2 more polar than compound 1? I see net dipole upwards but doesn't the carboxlyic group shift electronegativty to the left to balance out the flourines?

 

[texan2414]

@somuchwater

There is a little resistance formula you are missing; R = pL/A (p = resistivity, L= length, A = area).

In the Celecoxib passage, idk how to calculate the directionality of the net dipole but what I did is count how many "polar" groups are there in Comp 1 / 2. Comp 1 has 3 (trifluoro group, N--N, sulfonyl group) and Comp 2 has 4 (alcohol, sulfonyl, N--N, and trifluoro groups). So I reasoned #2 is more polar.