computerized mcats, good idea??

[aye]

---

Members do not see this ad.

sorry, i think i posted this at the wrong forum... i'll post it here...

Is this the first time they are doing this?? I'm thinking of registering to take it since i live in between baltimore and dc. And I can also type faster than i can write so it should help of the essay portion. And I read that you can go back to skipped questions unlike the GRE's. Will they provide scrap paper to do the math and all that?? If someone has taken the computer version before, please share some insight. Thanks!

 

[DrThom]

When I took my e-mcat computer tests, I would always print them out because I can't stand taking tests on the computer. I am quite thankful I took the MCAT before it goes completely computer. Don't know what I am going to do when boards comes up though.....

 

[sjas]

I registered for taking the Computer Based Test in Burlington, MA. I emailed them and they told me that scratch paper would be provided to calculations.

 

[blz]

Well supposedly, studies have shown that people actually read slower when they read off of a computer. However, considering the fact that I've never read a book in my life, i'd guess that I'd prolly be able to read faster on the computer screen. Not only that, you don't have to worry about neckpain from a computer because you don't have to keep your head down and you get scratch paper (which is not provided on the written test - all you get is that ltitle bit of room under the question). Plus, I wouldn't mind the idea of typing the writing samples. But then again, you do have to worry about eyestrain.

 

[ms2209]

Other than the ease with which the writing sample could be typed up, I think overall the computer MCAT would be harder for me. I don't know why, but I just feel as though the paper version gives you more to work with - even factoring in the scrap sheet they'd give you for the computer exam. I always printed out my practice items because I could never get used to working on the computer. Just my personal pref though...

 

[blz]

I bet the computer-based version has an awesome curve. If you just look at all the responses on SDN, most of the top notch MCAT peoples would never take it on the computer because there is less computerized mcat simulation to practice with. So if you got the balls, take the computerized version.

 

[SOUNDMAN]

It would just be like anything else you would have to practice, practice, practice in order to do well on the exam. You would have to get use to the questions. The only thing that I didn't like about taking a practice test on the computer was the inability to read the questions before reading the passage. I did a comparison with verbal on computer and paper and went from an 8 to a 12 just because I was able to read the questions first.

 

[bigdan]

Sound- True. Practice will make folks better.

I'm glad that I took the MCAT back in the day, when it was just on paper at my testing site. Had to walk uphill in the snow to get there, too. April 2004 was so long ago...

dc

 

[LUBDUBB]

I think the computer mcat would be more tiresome, due to computer screen eye strain.

I think time would be wasted, looking up at the screen and down at scratch work.

Paper is much easier to manipulate in times of stress.


I don't know, but I would steer cleer of computerized exams. Most exams we've taken have been on paper, so we're used to it.

On a side note, a friend of mine scored much lower on the computerized gre than on paper based. She blames it all on the computer, lol.

 

[RayhanS1282]

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer the paper and pencil. I like having something to hold (not that it's gonna improve my score) in my hand while I stare at it in disbelief. Computers, meh...I'll pass.

 

[Preet]

I replied to you other post as well and wanted to make sure others who have not read my reply have a chance to read it here.

Writing section is only one part of the exam. There are still the other 3 sections. It really depends on the person but I can tell you about my personal experience. I took the last paper based GRE offered and after a couple of months took the computer GRE. I scored 200 points lower (on all three sections) on the computer based after even having more time to read the second time around.

IMO, it will only be beneficial if all the review materials were on computer too. See, almost all the MCAT materials are paper based and many MCATers are used to taking the practice tests on paper as well. And what about the added strain on your eyes by staring at the screen for so many hours. So, I'm not sure how the transition will go for a lot of people. I really hope the trend of computerizing all the standardized tests doesn't get to the MCATs. Or if it getting to that, I hope that they will always give people a choice between the two formats.

 

[Kazema]

I personally would not take it computerized. I think it would feel like I wasn't really in control of the test, if that doesn't sound too crazy. You know, with the regular test you can move the booklet around and write on it and stuff. And if you get really frustrated and decide to void, you always have the option of tearing the booklet to pieces first 😉. Doing something similar to a computer would be...a lot more expensive for you I think.

But if you do take it computerized, I'd recommend taking your practice tests on the computer to get used to it.

 

[aingeal]

a friend of mine took it on the computer and the pages loaded really slowly, for all of the ~10 test takers that day. luckily for her a couple of the test takers complained and she was granted a letter from amcas ... but a letter only goes so far. it seems to me the computer presents more variables; i know i'd never prefer to take it that way.

also, tho you may be able to type writing more quickly, don't forget the other sections are weighed much more heavily

 

[Futurepedplease]

I love computers and technology, but I would not take the computer MCAT. I don't want to be a guinea pig with such an important exam.

However, I think that the MCAT in 5 years will be computerized. Once all the kinks have been improved.

 

[DrThom]

Just think, if you take a computer based test...there will be a timer in the bottom corner....

It will be taunting you....

"You're not moving fast enough"

"You're gonna fail....I am going to beat you"

"Oh..3 minutes and you've still got 15 questions to go....sucks to be you"


That would drive me nuts.

 

[Twitch]

Look at it this way. See how much you enjoy reading (and writing) on SDN. You're reading this right now aren't ya?
All this is great practice for the electronic mcat. It is inevitable (as someone pointed out 2006 they're going all out).

From past experience, I've taken almost half a dozen certification tests for MSFT (what can I say I was bored, and work paid for it). These are Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs). The testing strategy deals with making each additional question harder and harder till the test taker starts to get them wrong. Essentially CATs really test your breakdown point. Where you essentially challenge the edge of everything you know and how far luck can take you.

So - just be thankful - MCATs aren't CAT based....yet..... 😀

 

[willthatsall]

I thought 3r was alright on the computer, but I actually misclicked on two questions and when I went back I was like, "hmmm that's not the one I actually picked." It didn't change my score, but you never know when 2 questions is going to mean 2 points. The thing about 3r is that you don't have to click in the bubble to change your answer, if you click parallel to a bubble it also fills in that bubble. So if it is like that I would hate to take the real MCAT like that because I would probably miss some by inadvertently clicking.

 

[DieselPetrolGrl]

i agree paper is good when ur stressed..i like to make scratchmarks or tear bits off when i am stressed..if it goes computerized i will haveto make scratches on the screen with my watch or something..maybe they will let me chew the bundle of wires behind the tower or something. 🙁

 

[Noeljan]

I HATE computerized tests. They are AWEFUL. I had to take my nursing boards on the computer and I hated it. You do not feel like you are in test taking mode, the timer is annoying, I was forgetting common knowledge that I usually know so easily. Also, you don't feel in control. You can't go back to things or leave anything blank. You cannot use your pencil to mark things. I just hate it. HATE IT!!! I am glad I am taking the MCAT before that time. Thank the god I don't believe to exist😉
Why the heck does everything have to end on computers anyways. That is annoying.

 

[Tippy007]

Not if they paid me. Can you imagine reading 9 passages on the computer in 65 minutes??? Like the paper MCAT isn't hellish enough. NO WAY.

 

[ms2209]

Another annoying thing about the computer version - you can't mark up the text. I have a habit of underlining key points (especially in the verbal section), and making notes in the margins, etc...without the ability to do that, I don't think I could do very well on the MCAT.

 

[copa]

What if computer-based testing got your scores back in less than half the time, shortened the typical test day (not fewer questions, just less administrative overhead) by two hours, and gave you more flexibility in test dates?

Yes, I work for the MCAT and we are reading your comments about CBT, and taking them seriously. Would these advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

 

[Noeljan]

honestly I would rather wait 6 months for my score and have optimal testing conditions for myself (on paper), than get the results in 6 hours on the computer. Who cares about how quickly you get results if your score is ruined. I mean why does everything have to be about quick convenience these days. This is a very important test and I would rather have 2 hours taken up in one day than not get into medical school. I don't know if it just me, but I honestly think I would do significantly lower on a computer.

 

[KyGrlDr2B]

Wait until you guys have to take your boards...hehehehe. All of my tests in med school were paper and pencil and then boards are computerized. At least they offer QBANK to simulate testing conditions and get you used to staring at a comp for 8 hours. It actually wasn't that bad, but my neck and back were a little sore from sitting in that stupid chair all day.

 

[captain hazel]

The only real upshot I can think of about switching to computer testing is that they'd pretty much have to offer the MCAT over a broad range of dates, as copa referred to. I'm guessing that they'll have to run the test on "official" computers at testing sites to prevent shenanegans, like they do with the DATs & GREs. If so, there's not enough of 'em to fit everybody into two test dates per year.

I took the GRE at a prometrics site here in St. Louis, where they had only 6 computers. I know that there are other sites around this region (though they're a bit of a drive away), but there were a hell of a lot of MCAT-takers at my test administration. Are the MCATs going end up being administered in the same way as the other CBT tests? Is it going to be like the GREs, where you can pick practically any day to test?

So if they end up having to offer tests over more dates, it'll be better for re-takers; they won't have to wait for so long for the next test administration to roll around.

Oh, but fewer test sites might also mean that you'll end up at a site that's further away. Not fun for an 8 am test.

I'm just glad we get to take it while it's still on paper.

 

[Medikit]

Wait until you guys have to take your boards...hehehehe. All of my tests in med school were paper and pencil and then boards are computerized. At least they offer QBANK to simulate testing conditions and get you used to staring at a comp for 8 hours. It actually wasn't that bad, but my neck and back were a little sore from sitting in that stupid chair all day.

That's what bothers me about it, I spend my entire undergrad doing paper tests and then I move to the MCAT, which is already an unfamiliar experience, and then you remove the familiarity of the paper test from me.

Also, if the MCAT does go computerized something I'd like to see is an option that highlights a question if you answered it but aren't sure of your answer, and then a quicklink should appear so you can go back to that question in one click.

 

[MEG@COOL]

If you do have them on comps make sure that the monitors used are standardized, and NICE. 17" LCD perhaps, or if they are CRT make absolutely sure that the refresh rate is set at 100hz or greater.

 

[Scubadoc]

It seems there are pros and cons to the computerized tests. Sure it would be great to have more testing days (MCATs only twice a year is very limiting) and nice to get our scores back faster. But, the unfamiliarity of testing via computer would be a big negative.

If it goes completely computerized, would it be similar to the paper version where you can skip around as long as you stay in the section you are working on? I like to answer passages out of order, not in the order in which they appear in the test booklet. I also like to read the questions first then go back and read the text. Would there be some way to let us highlight, like right clicking on the mouse or something, or not? If we can't do any of those things then I would have to agree with the other posters and vote against computer-only MCATs. 👎

 

[Twitch]

If you do have them on comps make sure that the monitors used are standardized, and NICE. 17" LCD perhaps, or if they are CRT make absolutely sure that the refresh rate is set at 100hz or greater.

Refresh rates per VESA standards require 75 hz or more. Most people can notice flickering at 60 hz, but when you go above 85hz the typical person cannot see a noticeable difference. Heck I know people who can't even tell that their monitor is flickering worse than a tubelight. There are other factors such as dot pitch, contrast ratio, adobe rgb color space, etc. but that's more useful for folks who are doing graphics art using photoshop cs or other CG modelling type work. You don't need it for reading plain text.

Copa - here is my ideal computerized test setting:

LCD flat panel 16:9 ratio 21" wide flat. The 16:9 will provide test takers ample space to take notes on sides (similar to a tablet pc). This also gives them the ability to use multicolored highlighter (as available in one note 2003). One draw back with this setting is it reduces your vertical screen real estate so you may have to scroll down to view the entire passage. Hence, here is proposal #2:

setup #2: Here is another alternate setup (and a lot more cheaper).Imagine a dual 19" (portrait mode) monitor setup where the passages appear on the left monitor and the questions appear on the right one. You may make use a stylus or a mouse (and/or the keyboard) to answer questions or make notes. The typeface would be a serif font like ITC Garamond with a nice 12-14 point size. Response rate should be atleast 1/100 of a second for screen flips. Please don't use any of those older celeron's. I want the fastest you can get. I'd prefer a USB 2.0 keyboard/mouse. Those serial things are so antiquated.

The dual monitor increases response time and provides more visual information to the tester. It's also more natural (similar to an open test booklet with two pages side by side).

The benefits that Copa points out are well taken. Heck, as messy as my handwriting is, I wouldn't even think of doing paper and pencil tests. Besides I hate filling in those lil circles.
To those who think outside the circle (box) 🙂
-Y_Marker

 

[MEG@COOL]

Refresh rates per VESA standards require 75 hz or more. Most people can notice flickering at 60 hz, but when you go above 85hz the typical person cannot see a noticeable difference. Heck I know people who can't even tell that their monitor is flickering worse than a tubelight. There are other factors such as dot pitch, contrast ratio, adobe rgb color space, etc. but that's more useful for folks who are doing graphics art using photoshop cs or other CG modelling type work. You don't need it for reading plain text.

Thanks for getting technical to the point of irrelevance, but surpassing the point of being able to consciously identify flickering does not mean that eye strain could not be further reduced by increased refresh rates.

 

[Og kingofBashan]

What if computer-based testing got your scores back in less than half the time, shortened the typical test day (not fewer questions, just less administrative overhead) by two hours, and gave you more flexibility in test dates?

I don't think that it is valid to sacrifice the scores of test takers for any of these reasons.

The computer version is not tangible as the paper version - something you can hold and feel. It detatches the user from the actual test by placing barriers. Like others mentioned there is no way to mark up the test and make notes at will. The computer interface, no matter how innovative, will add debilitating constraints. I feel very strongly against it.

Why not give people the option? Those who choose to take the computerized version can have the shortened test day, flexible dates and faster scoring. Those taking the paper version can bear with the rigid schedule and longer testing.

Unless there is some underlying political or money-saving issue behind this computerization (which i am sure there is) I see no valid reason for switching to computers (please at least give ppl the option!)

 

[slackerjock]

from what i hear, computerized MCATS were on 15 inch monitors. imagine having to scroll down while reading those hellish verbal passages. it'd be even worse having to go back to the passage...as for the advantage on the WS, cares?

RE: USMLEs, passages are shorter and questions are more succinct. scrolling issue not a biggie.

p.s. on the computer, there's an option to turn off the scary timer.

p.p.s. Karman: i feel violated. keep dem AAMC biznitches out of our lounge. Just kidding AAMC, i love you.

 

[Twitch]

Thanks for getting technical to the point of irrelevance, but surpassing the point of being able to consciously identify flickering does not mean that eye strain could not be further reduced by increased refresh rates.

These are the same people who'll try to sell you on a dogmatic assertion that 32m colors is always better than 16.7m ....except to the rest of humanity who can only distinguish so many colors. There is a point where cranking the knob ain't gonna do you anymore good pal.

If you feel that you've found a differnt optimal point for refresh rates you should let the standards body know - Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA).

Take for example the film industry realm. When frames are moved slow enough you can distinguish each individual frame. Move it faster and the eyes percieve contigous motion. Now more isn't necessarily better. So if the frames transition faster and faster, the picture will become better???? Not really. Try an experiment with transitioning set to 5000fps on any amateur post production rig. Is it really that much better than 30fps???? sheesh

Take another example from the audio realm. Encoding voice at 320Mbps should sound better than 320kbps, yeah? You'll have a hard time finding an audiophile that can distinguish human spoken voice at the two different bit rates.

Summary: More isn't always good. There is an optimal level, after which you're just wasting money advocating higher specs.

-Y_Marker

 

[Yahweh]

If you do have them on comps make sure that the monitors used are standardized, and NICE. 17" LCD perhaps, or if they are CRT make absolutely sure that the refresh rate is set at 100hz or greater.

Do not be troubled by such things.

 

[MEG@COOL]

If you feel that you've found a differnt optimal point for refresh rates you should let the standards body know - Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA).

Take for example the film industry realm. When frames are moved slow enough you can distinguish each individual frame. Move it faster and the eyes percieve contigous motion. Now more isn't necessarily better. So if the frames transition faster and faster, the picture will become better???? Not really. Try an experiment with transitioning set to 5000fps on any amateur post production rig. Is it really that much better than 30fps???? sheesh

-Y_Marker

Ymarker please find out what you are talking about before you attempt to criticize me. There is a difference between 30fps film and 30fps/hz on a CRT computer monitor. One key difference is that frames of the film are interpolated and not true independent images which helps create the illusion of motion. A monitor displays sequential, static un-interpolated frames. If you have ever played games on a computer you can easily tell the difference between 30fps, 60fps, and 100 fps. Less jerky motion as well as less strobing(strobing specific to CRT, Not present in LCD) is undisputedly going to equate to less eye strain.
Those in the industry know what I know.

Oh by the way VESA is a body that specifies video standards to allow compatibility of software and hardware. They are not a biological/optical research firm. They should not be taken as the final authority on this subject. This is their position on the subject however: Although 85hz is their recommended MINIMUM refresh rate, they make no claim as to the limit of hz the human eye can see.

"By allowing a standard method of defining refresh rates, any rate can be computed as required by the industry and/or user. Thus VESA is neither limiting nor recommending the use of higher refresh rates, though most users generally seem to prefer higher rates. Also, there are emerging applications that need high refresh rate, such as stereovision. GTF will allow a method of defining these."
-taken from www.vesa.org

 

[Twitch]

Getting a body bag every six seconds in an all out fragfest proves the more the fps the better since every fraction of a second is an opportunity... for a gamer. But dude, this is text....motionless text, not UT2004 or FarCry. The latter which clearly is superior in terms of graphics quality, though I'm holding out for the HL2 and to a lesser degree DoomIII later this year.

I'd rather buy more screen real estate than the crappy 15" they are providing for the dollar available then spend on jazzing up referesh...Obviously, you've got your own priorities as I do mine.

 

[lorelei]

I didn't find out that the MCAT was offered on computer until after I'd already signed up for a paper-based testing date. At first I thought I'd greatly prefer a computer test - I'm a programmer, after all. The practice tests I'd been using were the AAMC ones on the web, and I thought I'd do a lot better on the essay if I could type it, since I rarely write by hand.

Then I took a few sections of a paper-based test (AAMC 7) and did way better than on the computer. That was repeated on the real (paper) test.

For me, it's a lot easier to concentrate on paper because I can literally block everything out by leaning over the test. Also with my elbows on the desk, I can twist my fingers in my hair which is my main concentration fidget.

The other thing is that I have repetitive stress injuries (due to programming) and while practice tests were fine for me with my cordless trackball, using a standard mouse at a testing center would be rather uncomfortable.