Correlation between prep courses/books/classes and MCAT score

[BACMEDIC]

Are prep books like Kaplan's or Barron's worth the time, or is it better to go over your text books? What about the classes that prepare you for the MCAT?

Is there a correlation between:

How well you do on the practice exams from these books and how well you do on the real test

Also, is there a correlation between:
Your GPA in the Premed classes vs MCAT score

I think there would be a direct correlation between how well one did in the pre-med classes (gen and o chem, physics, various bio courses) ones MCAT score - has anyone ever compiled this type of info?

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

Sure prep books are worth the time. Especially books by Kaplan or TPR. Ignore your class textbooks, a comprehensive review guide will cover everything you need, while your class textbooks may go too in depth in some things and not cover everything. If you have the money and time, a review course will help you stay focused and get a good score, but it's only for those who feel that they need it and won't just take the class and feel they don't have to study as a result.

There is a correlation between practice exams and real exams. The best determiners are the AAMC official practice exams, and from what I've heard III and V are the best. Make sure if you are prepping that you time yourself like a real MCAT and that you do it all in one sitting.

I think there is somewhat of a correlation between GPA and MCAT score, but that's only because people who are serious about med school tend to be serious about both. However, in many cases that doesn't hold true. Some people had bad freshmen/sophomore years, and then got serious and have high MCAT/low GPA. Others can have a perfect GPA and think the MCAT is a breeze and not study for it and come out with a low score. The MCAT takes preparation outside of your classes, and your score IMO is more a reflection of how much you prep FOR THE MCAT than what you've done in your undergraduate years. Note that humanities majors on average get a higher score than biology majors.

There have been some threads that reflect what I've said, but I don't think there's really been a good compilaation.

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Neuronix
The MCAT takes preparation outside of your classes, and your score IMO is more a reflection of how much you prep FOR THE MCAT than what you've done in your undergraduate years.

My opinion is different. I think that someone who has done really well during their undergrad years can do fine on the MCAT with little or no preparation. If you truly understood the material when you took the courses and are able to retain that material over time, you can do well on the MCAT with little or no preparation. But you need to be honest with yourself about what your abilities are and what your goals are.

I think that any given individual would score higher having done prep work than not having done it. But it may not be necessary to do the prep work, if your innate ability/knowledge and your goals match well.

 

[JScrusader]

I have a question, How did everyone's score correlate with their highest scores on Kaplan, PR, or aamc practice tests?

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by JScrusader
I have a question, How did everyone's score correlate with their highest scores on Kaplan, PR, or aamc practice tests?

I took it in April 2001 and scored 1 point higher on the real thing than my highest Kaplan.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I think that any given individual would score higher having done prep work than not having done it. But it may not be necessary to do the prep work, if your innate ability/knowledge and your goals match well.

I've met a whole slew of people who didn't study for the MCAT because they thought their Undergrad classes were enough. They all scored way lower than they expected. I don't know anyone outside of SDN who prepped very little for the MCAT and scored over a 30.

I guess it's possible to do it as you say, but I wouldn't tempt fate.