Any One else finding MCAT Rediculously hard And Impossible???

[Corpus Callosum]

I have never worked as hard in my life like this before, and never felt that stupid about myself, for me months are not breaking it, and I have 2 science bachelors, 1 science masters, aviation associate, I am just losing confidence in my school abilities, and I am a good student 4.0 graduate gpa, 3.5 undergraduate
sometimes I just feel you have to have a phd in every single area on the mcat to really bomb the test, to be honest sometimes even after reading the explanation of the question, I still would not understand, if fact I get more confused and the next time I answer things that I previously knew, wrong, I don't know, I am just so stunned at this test and what people do to do well????
I really do not believe in the logic and fairness of this test the least, and the first thing I am planning to do if I ever make it up there is to protest and change this stupid test, maybe get rid of it?
you guys with me on that?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

You have to see it from our prospective-- we don't think there's a secret AAMC ploy to get rid of all data that contradicts the MCAT. That just simply won't happen. If reliable data is gotten, it is published. If that study does exist, it surely still exists today. If it does indeed exist and is found, then we will change our minds. There is no AAMC conspiring going on between the media/researchers and the company.

Yes, English is your second language. I know for a fact that if I took the exam in Spanish I would perform more poorly on the Verbal Reasoning section, by virtue of it being my second language. However, all the material that you will have to read and comprehend in medical school is in English (textbooks, lecture notes, etc). You will not get your lectures in another language, so it is imperative that you know English well enough to be able to understand complex sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. Yes, it is punishing you for not having English as a first language, but it is doing so because having those technical English skills are important.

I am not certain how much research experience you may have, but I have been active in research for more than two years. I have read tons and multitude of literature related to my projects, and never encountered the slightest difficulty in assessing data, reading graphs, or drawing results. I can assure you however, this is quite distinct and at a completely different arena from the verbal reasoning passages that are on the mcat. I have been through countless number of science classes and langauge was never an abstacle. But verbal reasoning passage is another ballgame totally. It is just like comparing apples and oranges, the analogy does not stand.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I tried reading all the banter, but just couldn't make it through it. Let's make one thing clear: Blanket statements and generalizations are just that.. they cannot and should not be applied to every situation. There may be some easy and tough majors at both schools (and by my name, I'm sure you've figured I'm a UCLA alumnus). From a Daily Bruin article several years back, which I still remember.. Scandinavian Studies (or whatever it's called) has an average GPA of 3.9something at UCLA. My department, Chemistry/Biochemistry, has an average GPA of 2.7something. Engineering was even lower. Everything is relative, and to say that UCLA is easier than Stanford seems highly subjective. I'm sure some classes at Stanford are more difficult than their counterparts at UCLA - but are you saying this situation would never be turned around the other way?

It's not subjective if you compare apples to apples. Are you suggesting that there is no difference between schools in terms of competitiveness? Then by your logic, depending on what professors you take, Caltech could be easier than Cal State LA? That's ridiculous.

 

[RPedigo]

I am not certain how much research experience you may have, but I have been active in research for more than two years. I have read tons and multitude of literature related to my projects, and never encountered the slightest difficulty in assessing data, reading graphs, or drawing results. I can assure you however, this is quite distinct and at a completely different arena from the verbal reasoning passages that are on the mcat. I have been through countless number of science classes and langauge was no issue in any of them. But verbal reasoning passage is another ballgame totally. It is just like comparing apples and oranges, the analogy does not stand.

2.5 years research and 1,500 lab hours... yes, research articles do use a different language set than normal writing, but you have to see that being able to read something and understand what it's saying is extremely important. This is all that the Verbal Reasoning section asks you to do. It is true that they may be about feminism, or existentialism, or some random subject, but it's testing your ability to quickly understand, interpret, and analyze foreign material. Any foreign material. Hence the diverse subject range.

In fact, this is such a good determining factor of analytical and processing ability that it is most highly correlated with medical school success... which isn't so good for me, but that's the way it is.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

2.5 years research and 1,500 lab hours... yes, research articles do use a different language set than normal writing, but you have to see that being able to read something and understand what it's saying is extremely important. This is all that the Verbal Reasoning section asks you to do. It is true that they may be about feminism, or existentialism, or some random subject, but it's testing your ability to quickly understand, interpret, and analyze foreign material.

Look, I understand where you are coming from and I respect your input.
While we can argue back and forth on this for days, the only fact that remains is this, and since you are a researcher, let me phrase it along those lines: Assume that the mcat is an experiment, the control for this experiment is off (biased, different from me to you), then the results will most definitely be erroneous.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

you should probably stop posting and study instead.

Thanks for reminding me, almost forgot,
We'll do

 

[BrokenGlass]

2.5 years research and 1,500 lab hours... yes, research articles do use a different language set than normal writing, but you have to see that being able to read something and understand what it's saying is extremely important. This is all that the Verbal Reasoning section asks you to do. It is true that they may be about feminism, or existentialism, or some random subject, but it's testing your ability to quickly understand, interpret, and analyze foreign material. Any foreign material. Hence the diverse subject range.

In fact, this is such a good determining factor of analytical and processing ability that it is most highly correlated with medical school success... which isn't so good for me, but that's the way it is.

RPedigo your posts are always thoughtful and interesting to read. Whether MCAT is good test or not in terms of its predictive power for medical school performance could be a long discussion in its own right. I don't have a problem with the breadth of the topics tested on the MCAT, nor do I have a problem with many other aspects of the test. To me, it's not a test with such a great predictive power, it's just one more hurdle to jump over. The only issue I have with MCAT is wild fluctuations in difficulty as far as recent administartions are concerned. The curve does not compensate enough for such variability.

Many people here assume that MCAT is curved by the form, but as it turns out, not even that part is true. There was a post about this a couple of days ago along with the offical reply from AAMC.

People who are lucky enough to draw an easier version of the test would of course claim that MCAT is the best thing since sliced bread.

I have talked to a few med school students and there is no consensus on anything MCAT related. Some people didn't do well on the MCAT but did great on steop 1 USMLE, other people did great on the MCAT but no so hot on step 1 USMLE. There are other variations.

MCAT could potentially test hundreds of concepts. Even if all MCAT administrations were comparable in terms of difficulty, a person who doesn't know half the concepts can geat a great score while a person who knows almost all the concepts may not. That's not my idea of a test with good predictive power.

As far as VR is concerned, people who get a 10 miss about 10 questions out of 40. If a patient's well being depends on doctor's reading and interpreteting scientific articles under time pressure equivalent to that of the MCAT, then 25% of the patients are screwed. My point is all the tests you take in whatever profession are just tests. Real life practice of anything (law, medicine, engineering) is very different from any of the tests you have taken in school. If reading and interpreting scientific literature is such an important factor to being a good doctor, then it's more important to improve doctors' writing ability than to be able to guess what someone wrote on philosophy when s/he was high.

 

[chad5871]

Have you guys seen this article before?

 

[BrokenGlass]

Have you guys seen this article before?

Every "research" study has to be read with 2 points in mind:

1) whose interests does it serve
2) who paid for it

Remember that OJ passed a lie detector test administered by people on his payroll.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Have you guys seen this article before?

Click on the link below and see for yourself who Ellen Julian, the author of you favorite article, is
http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/nationalaed/html/06 agenda.htm

Ellen R. Julian, Ph.D., Associate VP and Director of the MedicalCollege Admission Test, Association of American Medical Colleges
I guess there is no need to elaborate anymore,.

 

[Ookluh]

It's not subjective if you compare apples to apples. Are you suggesting that there is no difference between schools in terms of competitiveness? Then by your logic, depending on what professors you take, Caltech could be easier than Cal State LA? That's ridiculous.

I'm saying that it could be easier to get an A in certain classes than in others. Using the example I cited, are Scandinavian Studies majors really "3.9 material" whereas Engineers are "2.5 material"? It's difficult to compare broadly, and if nearly every person that completes a certain major has a 3.9 at UCLA, then it's certainly possible that it's not as difficult to get an A in that major as it might be in a completely different class at Cal State LA.

But what you're essentially doing is blowing things to the extreme. Comparing a Top 10 school to one that doesn't even make the Top 100 seems slightly different than comparing a Top 10 to a Top 25.. talk about comparing apples to oranges.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I'm saying that it could be easier to get an A in certain classes than in others. Using the example I cited, are Scandinavian Studies majors really "3.9 material" whereas Engineers are "2.5 material"? It's difficult to compare broadly, and if nearly every person that completes a certain major has a 3.9 at UCLA, then it's certainly possible that it's not as difficult to get an A in that major as it might be in a completely different class at Cal State LA.

But what you're essentially doing is blowing things to the extreme. Comparing a Top 10 school to one that doesn't even make the Top 100 seems slightly different than comparing a Top 10 to a Top 25.. talk about comparing apples to oranges.

What is your idea of comparing apples to apples? If you want to focus on Scandinavian Studies, you must compare students who major in Scandinavian Studies at Stanford to students who major in Scandinavian studies at UCLA. Stanford would still be much more competitive. I can understand your confusion. You have never taken a course at Stanford, right? Taking one course at Stanford feels like taking 3 courses at UCLA. You don't quite understand the level of competition at Stanford compared to UCLA. UCLA is a picnic in comparison.

But at least you are admitting that Stanford is a top 10 school (it's a top 5 school really, but who's counting?) and UCLA is a top 25 school.

 

[dktragik]

I'm a student at Cal State LA, and I took my general chemistry and the first quarter of O-chem. at UCLA (14a, 14b, 14bl, and 14c), because they allow you to complete it in 4 quarters, while CSULA spreads it out over 6 quarters. If you count Quant, which is a requirement to take o-chem. lab, then it is 7 quarters. I wish I had not taken chem. at UCLA because their program sucks. By time I was finished with the first o-chem., I enrolled in O-chem. at CSULA because they really do one of the best jobs at teaching chemistry. I can't speak on the biology and biochemistry classes at UCLA, but I do know that there Chemistry department needs a lot of work. It's sad when you have math and physics grad. students teaching lab classes for chemistry. I'm not saying this because I got bad grades, because I did pretty well in those classes, but we have three former UCLA professors in the Chem. department, and they all agree that the program at UCLA isn't as intense as it is at CSULA.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I'm a student at Cal State LA, and I took my general chemistry and the first quarter of O-chem. at UCLA (14a, 14b, 14bl, and 14c), because they allow you to complete it in 4 quarters, while CSULA spreads it out over 6 quarters. If you count Quant, which is a requirement to take o-chem. lab, then it is 7 quarters. I wish I had not taken chem. at UCLA because their program sucks. By time I was finished with the first o-chem., I enrolled in O-chem. at CSULA because they really do one of the best jobs at teaching chemistry. I can't speak on the biology and biochemistry classes at UCLA, but I do know that there Chemistry department needs a lot of work. It's sad when you have math and physics grad. students teaching lab classes for chemistry. I'm not saying this because I got bad grades, because I did pretty well in those classes, but we have three former UCLA professors in the Chem. department, and they all agree that the program at UCLA isn't as intense as it is at CSULA.

I agree. The 14 series classes are quite easy.

 

[Ookluh]

You're right, I haven't taken any courses at Stanford. Even so, I would still hesitate to say that everything at Stanford is more difficult or competitive than it is at UCLA.

I'm not necessarily defending UCLA, just the idea that a school's ranking is all that matters to determine how difficult all of its programs are in respect to another. Saying that a 3.9 at UCLA would be a 3.3 at Stanford seems quite extreme.

As for CSULA, I also have not taken any classes there and can't really give any specific comments. I won't argue that it's possible that Chemistry at CSULA is better instructed or more intense than UCLA because, again, not everything is about national rankings. I will note that there is a 14 Series of Chem (for LS majors) and a 20/30 Series of Chem (for PS majors), which goes to show that blanket statements may not always be accurate (considering that even within one university, 'chem' is not always the same thing).

 

[BrokenGlass]

You're right, I haven't taken any courses at Stanford. Even so, I would still hesitate to say that everything at Stanford is more difficult or competitive than it is at UCLA.

I'm not necessarily defending UCLA, just the idea that a school's ranking is all that matters to determine how difficult all of its programs are in respect to another. Saying that a 3.9 at UCLA would be a 3.3 at Stanford seems quite extreme.

As for CSULA, I also have not taken any classes there and can't really give any specific comments. I won't argue that it's possible that CSULA is better instructed or more intense than UCLA because, again, not everything is about national rankings.

Everything at Stanford is more difficult than it is at UCLA because students at Stanford are much more competitive. You can be quite average and gain admission to UCLA. Stanford is much more selective.

If you end up attending a very competive med school, you will still not feel the intense competition unless letter grades are assigned.

Who do you think is harder to compete against, a guy who won the presidential medal in India or a guy who was in the top 10% of his high school in Rancho Cucamonga?

 

[BrokenGlass]

You're right, I haven't taken any courses at Stanford. Even so, I would still hesitate to say that everything at Stanford is more difficult or competitive than it is at UCLA.

I'm not necessarily defending UCLA, just the idea that a school's ranking is all that matters to determine how difficult all of its programs are in respect to another. Saying that a 3.9 at UCLA would be a 3.3 at Stanford seems quite extreme.

As for CSULA, I also have not taken any classes there and can't really give any specific comments. I won't argue that it's possible that Chemistry at CSULA is better instructed or more intense than UCLA because, again, not everything is about national rankings. I will note that there is a 14 Series of Chem (for LS majors) and a 20/30 Series of Chem (for PS majors), which goes to show that blanket statements may not always be accurate (considering that even within one university, 'chem' is not always the same thing).

I am not saying Stanford is a better school because it's ranked higher. I am saying Stanford is ranked higher because it's a better school. So lets be clear on the cause and effect here.

I am not focusing on the rankings for the sake of rankings. The rankings are just a reflection of the differences in students bodies, among other things.

 

[Meatwad]

Just for the record, Scandinavian Studies is a very difficult major. ChemE at Stanford, AerospaceE at CalTech, I'd take these majors over Scandi Studies any day. You guys ever try to read the Kalevala in the original Finnish?

 

[Ookluh]

I tried finding specific numbers to quote, but have to get back to secondaries.. but who cares if I'm competing against the guy with a presidential medal in India if the average GPA is much higher? I did some quick google searches, but all I haven't yet found the exact info I'm looking for.

If Princeton (article in Stanford Daily) numbers have DROPPED to give 41 percent A- and above.. and Harvard (Daily Princetonian article) numbers were nearly 50 percent As, how does that make them necessarily more difficult? Brown doesn't even have anything lower than a C!

Not everybody at Stanford is the best student from a country of a billion people. The pothead valedictorian from my high school went to Stanford - big whoop. In 1992 (15 years ago!), the average GPA at Stanford (Stanford Daily article) was 3.44. 15 years later, I know UCLA's current average GPA is 3.2something - so unless Stanford has been the only school in the nation to not undergo grade inflation... well, you get the point.

I'll do more searching later, but have to do some secondaries before going to work tonight.

 

[Ookluh]

Just for the record, Scandinavian Studies is a very difficult major. ChemE at Stanford, AerospaceE at CalTech, I'd take these majors over Scandi Studies any day. You guys ever try to read the Kalevala in the original Finnish?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to knock the major - I know I certainly couldn't get a 3.9 in it. Just indicating that when an average GPA is 3.9, there isn't the same level of "competition" as there is in an Engineering class or the like (omgz I might get an A-! oh no!). I believe the same goes between schools - if half of Harvard undergrads get As, and Brown doesn't record anything below a C, where's the pressure? Even if the student body is smarter, these schools are accounting for it and I don't understand the "a 3.9 at UCLA is a 3.3 at Stanford argument" that's been made.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I tried finding specific numbers to quote, but have to get back to secondaries.. but who cares if I'm competing against the guy with a presidential medal in India if the average GPA is much higher? I did some quick google searches, but all I haven't yet found the exact info I'm looking for.

If Princeton (article in Stanford Daily) numbers have DROPPED to give 41 percent A- and above.. and Harvard (Daily Princetonian article) numbers were nearly 50 percent As, how does that make them necessarily more difficult? Brown doesn't even have anything lower than a C!

Not everybody at Stanford is the best student from a country of a billion people. The pothead valedictorian from my high school went to Stanford - big whoop. In 1992 (15 years ago!), the average GPA at Stanford (Stanford Daily article) was 3.44. 15 years later, I know UCLA's current average GPA is 3.2something - so unless Stanford has been the only school in the nation to not undergo grade inflation... well, you get the point.

I'll do more searching later, but have to do some secondaries before going to work tonight.

You can look for statistics all you want, you can even hire a private investigator to help you, but at the end of the day, unless you attend both schools, you have no basis for comparison. Stanford classes are packed with people who could get 3.9 at UCLA with very little effort. Very few students at UCLA could get a 3.9 at Stanford.

You are missing my point entirely and are just blindly clinging to comparing numbers and are completely disregarding the differences in student bodies. People are given a higher percentage of As at schools like Stanford and Harvard because Stanford/Harvard, etc. students are that much better than students at public schools like UCLA. If Stanford gave up 10% As, then a 2.0 at Stanford would be like 4.0 at UCLA.

By the way, giving one counterexample doesn't refute a general statement. I know nothing of your pothead friend who went to Stanford, but if he's as bad as you seem to think, then he was probably at the very bottom of his class at Stanford, i.e. he was no med school material.

The difference between Stanford and UCLA is the difference between NBA and college basketball. Sure you can find a college player which is better than someone in the NBA (maybe even your pot smoking friend), but which is more competitive, college basketball or NBA? If basketball players were assigned grades both in college and in the NBA, would you be still be saying an A in college is the same as the A in the NBA?

Alright, it's time to work on my tertiaries.

 

[Ookluh]

Stanford classes are packed with people who could get 3.9 at UCLA with very little effort. Very few students at UCLA could get a 3.9 at Stanford.

You're right, I haven't taken a class at Stanford.. so I will give you that, and maybe that is the source of the disagreement here.. but are you saying that the people who get Bs and Cs at Stanford would be all be getting As at UCLA? Are you guys really all just that much brighter and harder working that you would be displacing the top UCLA students from their As?

 

[BrokenGlass]

You're right, I haven't taken a class at Stanford.. so I will give you that, and maybe that is the source of the disagreement here.. but are you saying that the people who get Bs and Cs at Stanford would be all be getting As at UCLA? Are you guys really all just that much brighter and harder working than even the top UCLA students?

Yes, people who get Bs at Stanford would have no problem getting As at UCLA.

Look, I have taken as many courses as you at UCLA (about 40 courses). I love UCLA. It's a great school. But I am being completely objective here. The level of competition at Stanford is on the whole new level compared to UCLA.

 

[gujuDoc]

You're right, I haven't taken a class at Stanford.. so I will give you that, and maybe that is the source of the disagreement here.. but are you saying that the people who get Bs and Cs at Stanford would be all be getting As at UCLA? Are you guys really all just that much brighter and harder working that you would be displacing the top UCLA students from their As?

I wouldn't say that it would have to do with intelligence so much as the way a professor tests something. For instance one professor might really make a class hard through essay tests, or very tricky multiple choice options, or they may ask questions in a manner similar to MCAT style questions while another professor might make very straight forward questions. This could be the difference between Stanford and UCLA. Perhaps it is not a difference solely in the students but the way the tests are written and the material is presented that could make it more difficult to achieve As at one school but not the other.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I wouldn't say that it would have to do with intelligence so much as the way a professor tests something. For instance one professor might really make a class hard through essay tests, or very tricky multiple choice options, or they may ask questions in a manner similar to MCAT style questions while another professor might make very straight forward questions. This could be the difference between Stanford and UCLA. Perhaps it is not a difference solely in the students but the way the tests are written and the material is presented that could make it more difficult to achieve As at one school but not the other.

The grading is on the curve at both schools. It doesn't matter how hard the professor is, what matters is how competitive your classmates are.

 

[gujuDoc]

The grading is on the curve at both schools. It doesn't matter how hard the professor is, what matters is how competitive your classmates are.

Oh. Well I stand corrected then. I suppose I thought it was based on the other reasons because someone was once describing the difference between the style of their classes at Cornell vs. what it is like here.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Oh. Well I stand corrected then. I suppose I thought it was based on the other reasons because someone was once describing the difference between the style of their classes at Cornell vs. what it is like here.

The only thing I have heard about Cornell is that it's brutally difficult. I have no reason to believe that it isn't. I have read somewhere that Cornell prduces some of the best med school students in the country.

 

[gujuDoc]

The only thing I have heard about Cornell is that it's brutally difficult. I have no reason to believe that it isn't. I have read somewhere that Cornell prduces some of the best med school students in the country.

I have no doubt about that considering its greater selectivity in students, great education and extracurricular and cultural opportunities present there amongst other factors.

 

[rushrules1]

What is your idea of comparing apples to apples? If you want to focus on Scandinavian Studies, you must compare students who major in Scandinavian Studies at Stanford to students who major in Scandinavian studies at UCLA. Stanford would still be much more competitive. I can understand your confusion. You have never taken a course at Stanford, right? Taking one course at Stanford feels like taking 3 courses at UCLA. You don't quite understand the level of competition at Stanford compared to UCLA. UCLA is a picnic in comparison.

But at least you are admitting that Stanford is a top 10 school (it's a top 5 school really, but who's counting?) and UCLA is a top 25 school.

Stanford student's "smarter" ....umm NOT!

so there was this one guy who was taking physics at a community college. on a handful of different occasions he insisted he was right on several group assignments/problem sets. each time I tried to convince him, along with my group partners, why his approach was wrong to the problem sets. funny how i was correct every time and he shut up for the remainder of the semester. so yes, there are *******es who attended Stanford

oh yeah, the guy said he already had a law degree from Stanford and was changing careers. he ended up with a C in the class. guess he thought classes at a cc would be a cakewalk

 

[whoisthedrizzle]

I nominate CC for the "Most Annoying Use of a Smiley on SDN" as well as "Most Likely to Keep Bumping His Own Thread" category. Oh yeah, how about "Most Likely to Make Something Up to Support his Argument". Finally, "Most Likely to Disagree With God Himself"

Seriously you guys, let this thread die, and CC's pride and integrity along with it.

x2

I completely agree.

Let this thread die a timely death.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Stanford student's "smarter" ....umm NOT!

so there was this one guy who was taking physics at a community college. on a handful of different occasions he insisted he was right on several group assignments/problem sets. each time I tried to convince him, along with my group partners, why his approach was wrong to the problem sets. funny how i was correct every time and he shut up for the remainder of the semester. so yes, there are *******es who attended Stanford

oh yeah, the guy said he already had a law degree from Stanford and was changing careers. he ended up with a C in the class. guess he thought classes at a cc would be a cakewalk

I wonder how someone like that could have earned a LAW degree from STANFORD. Unless I see the degree, it is quite hard to believe he actually does.

 

[gilbertjgreen]

I wonder how someone like that could have earned a LAW degree from STANFORD. Unless I see the degree, it is quite hard to believe he actually does.

Man, that is some top-notch elitism.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Man, that is some top-notch elitism.

Well he's saying the guy almost can't make it past a physics class at a community college, and he is a lawyer from stanford,

 

[gilbertjgreen]

Well he's saying the guy almost can't make it past a physics class at a community college, and he is a lawyer from stanford,

As far as I know, there are few to no mathematics requirements to major in political science, history, or some other such major that would prepare one for law school. As a humanities major at a liberal arts school, I should know as much as anyone that this is the case.

Chances are that this student came out of a similar background, and was unprepared for the mathemathics element of the course. Did you ask if this was a calculus-based physics class, because that would certainly up the ante.

I do not agree with your implication that community college classes are in any way easier than 4-year college courses. Both types of school follow the same state requirements, so why should their classes differ at all? I can tell you from experience that I've taken chemistry classes at both CCs and state schools, and found them to be equivalent in difficulty.

 

[BlueCow]

For those newbie students that are destined to be a doctors, do not go to Stanford or difficult universities (Cornell, etc.) because it is going to pull your GPA down. Go to your state universities like UCLA and make sure you make good grades. That will improve your chance of getting into medical school. Once accepted to medical school, you can unleash your brain power to ace the exams and the USLME.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Stanford student's "smarter" ....umm NOT!

so there was this one guy who was taking physics at a community college. on a handful of different occasions he insisted he was right on several group assignments/problem sets. each time I tried to convince him, along with my group partners, why his approach was wrong to the problem sets. funny how i was correct every time and he shut up for the remainder of the semester. so yes, there are *******es who attended Stanford

oh yeah, the guy said he already had a law degree from Stanford and was changing careers. he ended up with a C in the class. guess he thought classes at a cc would be a cakewalk

Yes, you bring up a valid point. I met this guy a few months ago who CLAIMED he was a professional race car driver. He even showed us his fake superbowl ring. My buddies in east LA roughed him in a pick up game. The guy was all talk but he could not play basketball. The guy said he was tired of racing and he was changing careers. I guess he thought basketball in a ghetto would be a cakewalk. I guess he was wrong. Why would anybody be racing cars for big bucks when he can play pickup basketball in East LA?

 

[Corpus Callosum]

As far as I know, there are few to no mathematics requirements to major in political science, history, or some other such major that would prepare one for law school. As a humanities major at a liberal arts school, I should know as much as anyone that this is the case.

Chances are that this student came out of a similar background, and was unprepared for the mathemathics element of the course. Did you ask if this was a calculus-based physics class, because that would certainly up the ante.

I do not agree with your implication that community college classes are in any way easier than 4-year college courses. Both types of school follow the same state requirements, so why should their classes differ at all? I can tell you from experience that I've taken chemistry classes at both CCs and state schools, and found them to be equivalent in difficulty.

Oh boy, here we go, the debate is shifting now to community college/university level of difficulty, where do we begin
Yes they may follow the same state requirements and board of education and liscensing ect ect..., however universtsities always hold a higher standard of education. Professors at a university are more qualified, distinquished and educated (generally speaking), most of them engaged in research, and have been around for quite a while. As for the community college, that is not the case most of the time, hell I know a guy here who is a graduate student, had not had his master's degree yet and he teaches in a community college.
That's exactly some of the reasons why an admission's officer at university of michigan dental school told my sister (she is applying to dental school there):"We do not recommend any classes taken at a community college".
Draw your own conclusions.
And I wanna bet that's most likely the case with medical schools also.
Finally, if based on your previous post, if you are trying to place a community college (even the top notch one) at tthe same level as Stanford, that is pathetic,

 

[BrokenGlass]

x2

I completely agree.

Let this thread die a timely death.

If you really wanted this thread to die, you wouldn't be posting here.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

If you really wanted this thread to die, you wouldn't be posting here.

EXACTLY,

 

[BrokenGlass]

For those newbie students that are destined to be a doctors, do not go to Stanford or difficult universities (Cornell, etc.) because it is going to pull your GPA down. Go to your state universities like UCLA and make sure you make good grades. That will improve your chance of getting into medical school. Once accepted to medical school, you can unleash your brain power to ace the exams and the USLME.

I have been preaching exactly the same thing for a long time. In addition, if you go to a very competitive school, you will not have enough time to devote to MCAT (you'll be too busy trying to survive the brutal competition) and will not score as high as you could have if you went to a laid back school.

 

[gilbertjgreen]

Oh boy, here we go, the debate is shifting now to community college/university level of difficulty, where do we begin
Yes they may follow the same state requirements and board of education and liscensing ect ect..., however universtsities always hold a higher standard of education. Professors at a university are more qualified, distinquished and educated (generally speaking), most of them engaged in research, and have been around for quite a while. As for the community college, that is not the case most of the time, hell I know a guy here who is a graduate student, had not had his master's degree yet and he teaches in a community college.
That's exactly some of the reasons why an admission's officer at university of michigan dental school told my sister (she is applying to dental school there):"We do not recommend any classes taken at a community college".
Draw your own conclusions.
And I wanna bet that's most likely the case with medical schools also.
Finally, if based on your previous post, if you are trying to place a community college (even the top notch one) at tthe same level as Stanford, that is pathetic,

Whatever.

Officially signing off from this pointless thread.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

Whatever.

Officially signing off from this pointless thread.

Ya I know most of the time, the truth hurts, ouuuuuuuch...

 

[rushrules1]

I do not agree with your implication that community college classes are in any way easier than 4-year college courses. Both types of school follow the same state requirements, so why should their classes differ at all? I can tell you from experience that I've taken chemistry classes at both CCs and state schools, and found them to be equivalent in difficulty.

a friend of mine transferred from a cc into Ookla and he said that the lower division physics at the cc was much more difficult than the physics 1 series at Ookla. and he felt more prepared for the upper div physicial science classes compared to Ookla students who matriculated in a freshmen. same thing with another friend who transferred into Cal from a cc.

Yes, you bring up a valid point. I met this guy a few months ago who CLAIMED he was a professional race car driver. He even showed us his fake superbowl ring. My buddies in east LA roughed him in a pick up game. The guy was all talk but he could not play basketball. The guy said he was tired of racing and he was changing careers. I guess he thought basketball in a ghetto would be a cakewalk. I guess he was wrong. Why would anybody be racing cars for big bucks when he can play pickup basketball in East LA?

meh...many individuals pass through the cracks, get into "prestigious" universities and manage to earn advanced degress. that just tells me there are varying degrees of "smarts". some people are "book smart" but suck in lab, some are "street smart" or others are "common sense smart". i've done molecular biology internships at labs in UPenn as well as Ookla and i have to say the "science intelligence" of some grad students I interacted with was suspect. one biological chem grad student at Ookla, who did undergrad at Cal, couldn't get an immunoprecipitation (ip) to work for 6 months. she used primary antibodies already proven to work and published in several reputable scientific journals. i read a handful of papers to kind of follow the ip protocols and did several control conditions. it took me a week and a half to figure out, showed the results to the grad student and gave my "recipe" to Cal graduate. at UPenn, this one grad student was doing a thesis on dna binding efficiency on glass slides coated with different polymers for microarray purposes. i mentioned, "ummm, it's been figured out. you don't need to coat glass slides with anything, you can bind dna onto uncoated slides by uv-crosslinking. have you read the papers where it shows there's actually lower dna binding efficiency if the slide is coated with poly-lysine or silane?" a few other UPenn grad students, in the same department as dna binding person, were asking me for advice on how to do PCR reaction permutations....that was when I was a 17-year old punk ass kid

i don't see pre-meds majoring in a science as being more "intelligent" compared to, let's say, an artistic major such as music. you actually have to be talented to be considered into a music program at a "prestigious" university. i'll put my money any day on a music major getting into med-school relative to some "hard science" major transitioning into the music profession. i've seen it happen first hand. i took classes with a non-trad who was a jazz singer/performer for years who eventually got accepted into several med-schools in texas. i've yet to learn about an md leaving their practice then pursue music as a career. if you're willing to sit on your ass to study all day for classes/the mcat & do a few ecs, you'll eventually make it into med-school. anybody can do that, not so with being a musician.

 

[BrokenGlass]

a friend of mine transferred from a cc into Ookla and he said that the lower division physics at the cc was much more difficult than the physics 1 series at Ookla. and he felt more prepared for the upper div physicial science classes compared to Ookla students who matriculated in a freshmen. same thing with another friend who transferred into Cal from a cc.

meh...many individuals pass through the cracks, get into "prestigious" universities and manage to earn advanced degress. that just tells me there are varying degrees of "smarts". some people are "book smart" but suck in lab, some are "street smart" or others are "common sense smart". i've done molecular biology internships at labs in UPenn as well as Ookla and i have to say the "science intelligence" of some grad students I interacted with was suspect. one biological chem grad student at Ookla, who did undergrad at Cal, couldn't get an immunoprecipitation (ip) to work for 6 months. she used primary antibodies already proven to work and published in several reputable scientific journals. i read a handful of papers to kind of follow the ip protocols and did several control conditions. it took me a week and a half to figure out, showed the results to the grad student and gave my "recipe" to Cal graduate. at UPenn, this one grad student was doing a thesis on dna binding efficiency on glass slides coated with different polymers for microarray purposes. i mentioned, "ummm, it's been figured out. you don't need to coat glass slides with anything, you can bind dna onto uncoated slides by uv-crosslinking. have you read the papers where it shows there's actually lower dna binding efficiency if the slide is coated with poly-lysine or silane?" a few other UPenn grad students, in the same department as dna binding person, were asking me for advice on how to do PCR reaction permutations....that was when I was a 17-year old punk ass kid

i don't see pre-meds majoring in a science as being more "intelligent" compared to, let's say, an artistic major such as music. you actually have to be talented to be considered into a music program at a "prestigious" university. i'll put my money any day on a music major getting into med-school relative to some "hard science" major transitioning into the music profession. i've seen it happen first hand. i took classes with a non-trad who was a jazz singer/performer for years who eventually got accepted into several med-schools in texas. i've yet to learn about an md leaving their practice then pursue music as a career. if you're willing to sit on your ass to study all day for classes/the mcat & do a few ecs, you'll eventually make it into med-school. anybody can do that, not so with being a musician.

If you had a couple of more drinks, your post would have been even more enlightening.

 

[gujuDoc]

Oh boy, here we go, the debate is shifting now to community college/university level of difficulty, where do we begin
Yes they may follow the same state requirements and board of education and liscensing ect ect..., however universtsities always hold a higher standard of education. Professors at a university are more qualified, distinquished and educated (generally speaking), most of them engaged in research, and have been around for quite a while. As for the community college, that is not the case most of the time, hell I know a guy here who is a graduate student, had not had his master's degree yet and he teaches in a community college.
That's exactly some of the reasons why an admission's officer at university of michigan dental school told my sister (she is applying to dental school there):"We do not recommend any classes taken at a community college".
Draw your own conclusions.
And I wanna bet that's most likely the case with medical schools also.
Finally, if based on your previous post, if you are trying to place a community college (even the top notch one) at tthe same level as Stanford, that is pathetic,

No the reason why people don't like community college courses is not solely because one is a researcher and one is an instructor but also because in an university, the person has like 500 people in class sometimes especially true at bigger name universities though not so much with the private schools. This, in turn, makes it harder to earn an A especially in a curved course where only a certain percentage of people earn a grade.

On the issue of difficulty in CC courses vs. universities, it depends on the course, the instructor, and other given factors.

For instance, I've taken A&P 1 at a community college and at a university and I found the university course to be more difficult. On the other hand, I think the calculus course at the CC was more difficult in some ways. Of course that depends on the teacher.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

a friend of mine transferred from a cc into Ookla and he said that the lower division physics at the cc was much more difficult than the physics 1 series at Ookla. and he felt more prepared for the upper div physicial science classes compared to Ookla students who matriculated in a freshmen. same thing with another friend who transferred into Cal from a cc.

meh...many individuals pass through the cracks, get into "prestigious" universities and manage to earn advanced degress. that just tells me there are varying degrees of "smarts". some people are "book smart" but suck in lab, some are "street smart" or others are "common sense smart". i've done molecular biology internships at labs in UPenn as well as Ookla and i have to say the "science intelligence" of some grad students I interacted with was suspect. one biological chem grad student at Ookla, who did undergrad at Cal, couldn't get an immunoprecipitation (ip) to work for 6 months. she used primary antibodies already proven to work and published in several reputable scientific journals. i read a handful of papers to kind of follow the ip protocols and did several control conditions. it took me a week and a half to figure out, showed the results to the grad student and gave my "recipe" to Cal graduate. at UPenn, this one grad student was doing a thesis on dna binding efficiency on glass slides coated with different polymers for microarray purposes. i mentioned, "ummm, it's been figured out. you don't need to coat glass slides with anything, you can bind dna onto uncoated slides by uv-crosslinking. have you read the papers where it shows there's actually lower dna binding efficiency if the slide is coated with poly-lysine or silane?" a few other UPenn grad students, in the same department as dna binding person, were asking me for advice on how to do PCR reaction permutations....that was when I was a 17-year old punk ass kid

i don't see pre-meds majoring in a science as being more "intelligent" compared to, let's say, an artistic major such as music. you actually have to be talented to be considered into a music program at a "prestigious" university. i'll put my money any day on a music major getting into med-school relative to some "hard science" major transitioning into the music profession. i've seen it happen first hand. i took classes with a non-trad who was a jazz singer/performer for years who eventually got accepted into several med-schools in texas. i've yet to learn about an md leaving their practice then pursue music as a career. if you're willing to sit on your ass to study all day for classes/the mcat & do a few ecs, you'll eventually make it into med-school. anybody can do that, not so with being a musician.

Quite some novel you have going there,,
I need some help here in the lab, will you give me a hand (as long as you are not that 17-year old punk ass kid anymore).

 

[Corpus Callosum]

a friend of mine transferred from a cc into Ookla and he said that the lower division physics at the cc was much more difficult than the physics 1 series at Ookla. and he felt more prepared for the upper div physicial science classes compared to Ookla students who matriculated in a freshmen. same thing with another friend who transferred into Cal from a cc.

meh...many individuals pass through the cracks, get into "prestigious" universities and manage to earn advanced degress. that just tells me there are varying degrees of "smarts". some people are "book smart" but suck in lab, some are "street smart" or others are "common sense smart". i've done molecular biology internships at labs in UPenn as well as Ookla and i have to say the "science intelligence" of some grad students I interacted with was suspect. one biological chem grad student at Ookla, who did undergrad at Cal, couldn't get an immunoprecipitation (ip) to work for 6 months. she used primary antibodies already proven to work and published in several reputable scientific journals. i read a handful of papers to kind of follow the ip protocols and did several control conditions. it took me a week and a half to figure out, showed the results to the grad student and gave my "recipe" to Cal graduate. at UPenn, this one grad student was doing a thesis on dna binding efficiency on glass slides coated with different polymers for microarray purposes. i mentioned, "ummm, it's been figured out. you don't need to coat glass slides with anything, you can bind dna onto uncoated slides by uv-crosslinking. have you read the papers where it shows there's actually lower dna binding efficiency if the slide is coated with poly-lysine or silane?" a few other UPenn grad students, in the same department as dna binding person, were asking me for advice on how to do PCR reaction permutations....that was when I was a 17-year old punk ass kid

i don't see pre-meds majoring in a science as being more "intelligent" compared to, let's say, an artistic major such as music. you actually have to be talented to be considered into a music program at a "prestigious" university. i'll put my money any day on a music major getting into med-school relative to some "hard science" major transitioning into the music profession. i've seen it happen first hand. i took classes with a non-trad who was a jazz singer/performer for years who eventually got accepted into several med-schools in texas. i've yet to learn about an md leaving their practice then pursue music as a career. if you're willing to sit on your ass to study all day for classes/the mcat & do a few ecs, you'll eventually make it into med-school. anybody can do that, not so with being a musician.

No the reason why people don't like community college courses is not solely because one is a researcher and one is an instructor but also because in an university, the person has like 500 people in class sometimes especially true at bigger name universities though not so much with the private schools. This, in turn, makes it harder to earn an A especially in a curved course where only a certain percentage of people earn a grade.

On the issue of difficulty in CC courses vs. universities, it depends on the course, the instructor, and other given factors.

For instance, I've taken A&P 1 at a community college and at a university and I found the university course to be more difficult. On the other hand, I think the calculus course at the CC was more difficult in some ways. Of course that depends on the teacher.

I thought that the massive number of students that are taking freshman and sophomore level entry courses would be more in community colleges than universities. Never been to a community college, but that is what I heard.
My sister took an elective class at a community college here and she told me there was 180 people in the class,.

 

[Cytotoxic]

I thought that the massive number of students that are taking freshman and sophomore level entry courses would be more in community colleges than universities. Never been to a community college, but that is what I heard.
My sister took an elective class at a community college here and she told me there was 180 people in the class,.

My orgo. and physics classes had ~ 600 students...other common pre-med courses (biochem, cell bio, etc.) were slightly smaller.

 

[Corpus Callosum]

My orgo. and physics classes had ~ 600 students...other common pre-med courses (biochem, cell bio, etc.) were slightly smaller.

community college or university?

 

[Cytotoxic]

community college or university?

University (JHU)

 

[Phoenix 47]

University (JHU)

that's where i go too. the orgo II class last semester had like 600 kids signed up but less than 500 seats in the hodson auditorium. it was a bit of a mess.