Cramming Before the MCAT to Get a Higher Score is Pointless

[efle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Efle, stop. You must understand that the vast majority of peopole who take the MCAT are not Wash U students or anyone of equal caliber. Only at Wash U and maybe some Ivy's would you learn all the "challenging topics in great depth." At other schools, the basics are covered and that's fine and dandy for everyone. And no, you are not the only one who had curved exams. I did, your peers did, and so do all the people at state schools who had exams curved much harder than ours ever were. For a 99.9th percentile scorer, yes, the MCAT is not the best way to test your abilities, but for average joes who want to go into medicine and don't give a sh** about going in depth for all the prereq's, the MCAT is enough of a hurdle already. There is no reason to change the MCAT to make it even harder than it already is, unless you think that only extremely smart people should become doctors, which would be a highly selfish thing to claim.

A heck of a lot of SDNers are, though, especially the ones already accepted to/in med school.

If most people beat tough curves in sciences for several years, why does everyone protest the use of sGPAs as a good alternative to the MCAT in establishing ability to study hard and take stressful tests? Then you could relegate the MCAT to a more SAT type role of purely testing aptitude instead of study habits.

Selfish or not, I do believe doctors should be smart. I also feel that way about the people receiving public research funding, designing our skyscrapers and shooting billions of dollars into outer space, though that is a lot less selfish.

 

[mehc012]

Very little of the premed coursework is intended to be used throughout a medical career. Even the tangentially related things will be mostly re-learned in med school and in far greater depth where actually used. Its the type of learning and material which makes it a useful metric. I have no problem with learning a little of many topics; I do have a problem with being tested in a shallow, predictable manner on challenging topics we learned in great depth.

Like I said above, even if proving one's ability to take high-stakes stressful exams was the primary purpose of the MCAT (and it isn't) the sGPA would be a better metric of this unless I am the only one who had curved exams deciding my grades. I already took the MCAT, got 99.9th %ile, and adamantly believe it is a terrifically bad way to summarize an applicant's reasoning ability and ability to understand and be tested on science material.

Can we stop reiterating that you did well on the exam and actually explain why you feel that doing well in science courses is a better metric for standardized test performance than standardized test performance?

 

[efle]

Right, I'm talking about your earlier point where doing well on the MCAT due to your coursework is good, yet doing it due to studying is somehow bad.
I don't see the difference: you either learned the material or you didn't, who cares when you learned it?

My line of reasoning is that a lot of material gets covered in great depth in years of science coursework. I can successfully mimic someone with mastery of all that material, that is score equally on the test used to assess our science understanding and reasoning, by pouring many many hours into mastery of the test itself and only understanding the selected topics at a basic level. That seems wrong to me.

 

[efle]

Can we stop reiterating that you did well on the exam and actually explain why you feel that doing well in science courses is a better metric for standardized test performance than standardized test performance?

And again, it's because my experience in science coursework throughout undergrad has been like a much more in-depth and difficult, curved extension of each area the MCAT tests. Getting an A in OChem involved a lot more Ochem know-how than getting all the MCAT questions right. Therefore, a collection of many years of Ochem-like courses should give a better picture than the MCAT does.

 

[Boolean]

My line of reasoning is that a lot of material gets covered in great depth in years of science coursework. I can successfully mimic someone with mastery of all that material, that is score equally on the test used to assess our science understanding and reasoning, by pouring many many hours into mastery of the test itself and only understanding the selected topics at a basic level. That seems wrong to me.

I'm going to second @Ace Khalifa on this one. While I agree with you, there isn't much of a way of standardizing coursework. The coursework you completed at WUSTL and the coursework Premed Bob completes at Herp Derpington University for Derps will not necessarily indicate the same level of understanding (despite being the same "class")

 

[Ace Khalifa]

A heck of a lot of SDNers are, though, especially the ones already accepted to/in med school.

If most people beat tough curves in sciences for several years, why does everyone protest the use of sGPAs as a good alternative to the MCAT in establishing ability to study hard and take stressful tests? Then you could relegate the MCAT to a more SAT type role of purely testing aptitude instead of study habits.

Selfish or not, I do believe doctors should be smart. I also feel that way about the people receiving public research funding, designing our skyscrapers and shooting billions of dollars into outer space, though that is a lot less selfish.

The sGPA is already being used, that's why it can't be an alternative to the MCAT. Adcoms use HOLISITIC REVIEW now, so they look at everything: cGPA, sGPA, MCAT, EC's, LOR's, etc in context of the whole application. The MCAT is just as important of a metric as the sGPA when they are looked at in the context of the application. "Not all GPA's are created equal." This has been stated on SDN ad nauseum. You can't rely on sGPA alone. A high sGPA could very well be due to taking a lot of easy "science" courses like nutrition or astronomy or stuff like that in addition to doing okay on the prereq's. Thus, the MCAT, as it is right now, is needed to give context to the applicant so that adcoms can see if that high sGPA was a fluke or actually due to stellar performance in difficult science courses over time.

Also, adcoms can see what classes you've taken, so there's that too.

 

[mehc012]

And again, it's because my experience in science coursework throughout undergrad has been like a much more in-depth and difficult, curved extension of each area the MCAT tests. Getting an A in OChem involved a lot more Ochem know-how than getting all the MCAT questions right. Therefore, a collection of many years of Ochem-like courses should give a better picture than the MCAT does.

Trust me, you did not go to a substantially more challenging school than my own, and you and I scored similarly. I still have a different opinion than you, and it would be nice if we could actually discuss THAT, rather than trying to drop stats as if that proved anything about your point.

 

[mehc012]

You continue to ignore the fact that standardized testing, especially that covering a large amount of material, is an important aspect of medical education. I'm sorry, but no matter how difficult your classes were/are, the best indicator for future standardized testing performance is, well...standardized testing performance.

You admitted yourself that not all schools measure their grades the same way, give exams, or give multiple choice exams. That makes GPA alone a poor measure for across-the-board comparison of standardized testing ability. The SAT is a joke - that's what you get when you try to test 'testing aptitude' alone without a large content component.

 

[efle]

Fair points all, I concede it is only my own case where I can judge sGPA to have required greater ability and knowledge than the MCAT. If the role of that test is really to test your test taking, its fine as it is.

 

[xffan624]

Very little of the premed coursework is intended to be used throughout a medical career. Even the tangentially related things will be mostly re-learned in med school and in far greater depth where actually used. Its the type of learning and material which makes it a useful metric. I have no problem with learning a little of many topics; I do have a problem with being tested in a shallow, predictable manner on challenging topics we learned in great depth.

Pretty much describes MS1 and MS2. The fire hose is very predictable, it doesn't it make it any easier to swallow. I hope you appreciate the ridiculousness of a pre-med lecturing a medical student what medical school is like.

 

[efle]

Pretty much describes MS1 and MS2. The fire hose is very predictable, it doesn't it make it any easier to swallow. I hope you appreciate the ridiculousness of a pre-med lecturing a medical student what medical school is like.

Yeah because there are no undergrads where people work comparably hard on difficult material to your terribly demanding MS1, right?

 

[mehc012]

Pretty much describes MS1 and MS2. The fire hose is very predictable, it doesn't it make it any easier to swallow. I hope you appreciate the ridiculousness of a pre-med lecturing a medical student what medical school is like.

They...didn't. They were describing their own schooling. You were the one who drew the parallel

 

[xffan624]

They...didn't. They were describing their own schooling. You were the one who drew the parallel

I was not referring to the entire thread. If you read the post I was referring to, the OP mentioned medical school curriculum in relation to the MCAT.

 

[xffan624]

Yeah because there are no undergrads where people work comparably hard on difficult material to your terribly demanding MS1, right?

How many undergrads take 40 credit hours in one semester? That's what my school says our coursework is equivalent to. As I have said before, it's not terribly difficult material, it's the volume that is the challenge. You have limited amount of time so a shallow amount of understanding in a large amount of material is pretty much what you strive to achieve at least in MS1-MS2, which is what you seem to rail against about the MCAT.

 

[Boolean]

How many undergrads take 40 credit hours in one semester? That's what my school says our coursework is equivalent to. As I have said before, it's not terribly difficult material, it's the volume that is the challenge. You have limited amount of time so a shallow amount of understanding in a large amount of material is pretty much what you strive to achieve at least in MS1-MS2, which is what you seem to rail against about the MCAT.

To be fair, you're not expected to jump through the pre-med hoops once you're a medical student (which occupy a substantial amount of time each week).

 

[efle]

There are people who worked harder as upperclassmen in top schools than during beginning of Med school, unless the people I've talked to are all outliers.

No, I said I had a problem with spending years learning topics in extreme depth only to have them tested superficially in a way which rewards practice and meta analysis of the test as much as mastery of the subjects.

 

[AlteredScale]

I've been lurking this for a while and I'm not even sure if I know what each side is defending here.

 

[PantherPride]

Because the MCAT tests only a select few, rather shallow science topics. You can ace the MCAT PS with zero understanding of Maxwell's equations, or relativity, or how wave behaviors of electrons give rise to orbital shapes, etc.

For the MCAT to legitimately test how well you understand chemistry and physics at that level would require students to also have taken calc 1/2/3/differential equations/linear algebra

 

[Narmerguy]

Whoa there buddy.

I took the MCAT in August, 41 (14/13/14). First practice tests I took were 36 and 37, after studying my AAMC FL 9, 10, 11 averaged 40.66. Improvement was due to memorization for the discretes and learning a lot of Physics for the first time (never had optics, buoyancy, and a few other things in my class, which instead did quantum and very in depth E&M not tested).

It's absolute BS to say the test isn't hugely impacted by targeted memory/experience with the topics. Many of the passages in PS/BS can be merely glanced at before moving directly to the questions if you have truly mastered the material beforehand. Learning how to dissect certain questions and related tactics (again, esp in verbal) in no way represents an improved fluid intelligence/reasoning as you claim, but does boost your score (hence Princeton hyperlearning and related books' wild popularity).

We can agree to disagree, but don't assume I'm ignorant of the topic because you had a different experience. The MCAT is an incredibly study-impacted test which allows differences in ability/general understanding of the sciences to be hidden behind differences in effective standardized test prep.

My first MCAT practice test scores were in the low 30s. Only difference between then and when I sat for the test was weeks and weeks of studying with nothing but time and no shortage of study resources to use to learn (TBR, EK, etc). This test, like all standardized tests, yields to studying. The messiness comes because it also yields to reasoning, and so you have different paths to "success". My friend studied a week and got a 37. Many people study months and never achieve that score. But at the same time, if you look at the majority of people scoring in the 37+ range, more of them studied a bunch than did not.

 

[sliceofbread136]

There are people who worked harder as upperclassmen in top schools than during beginning of Med school, unless the people I've talked to are all outliers.

No, I said I had a problem with spending years learning topics in extreme depth only to have them tested superficially in a way which rewards practice and meta analysis of the test as much as mastery of the subjects.

I guess what I'm not understanding is why the mastery of the subjects is important? The material is 100% useless in medical school.

 

[sliceofbread136]

How many undergrads take 40 credit hours in one semester? That's what my school says our coursework is equivalent to. As I have said before, it's not terribly difficult material, it's the volume that is the challenge. You have limited amount of time so a shallow amount of understanding in a large amount of material is pretty much what you strive to achieve at least in MS1-MS2, which is what you seem to rail against about the MCAT.

I'm sorry but that is a complete joke. 20 credit hours tops

 

[efle]

I guess what I'm not understanding is why the mastery of the subjects is important? The material is 100% useless in medical school.

Your mastery of the material doesn't matter. You'll never use it. Your ability to master this useless material is what they're looking for.

 

[efle]

I'm sorry but that is a complete joke. 20 credit hours tops

I dunno, people do 18-20 credits + research +volunteering + sports + club + shadowing

 

[sliceofbread136]

Your mastery of the material doesn't matter. You'll never use it. Your ability to master this useless material is what they're looking for.

And why doesn't pre-test cramming doesn't qualify as mastering?

I dunno, people do 18-20 credits + research +volunteering + sports + club + shadowing

I meant med school work is equivalent to at most 20 hours. The 40 credit hour estimation is a joke. Personally I worked alot harder in undergrad than I currently do in medical school (and I only took 14 credit hours usually)

 

[blueharbor]

Studying for the MCAT taught me a lot about science, especially biology. It was the first time I truly understood many concepts I'd learned only partially over the years. I am currently taking a graduate level biology course and used my MCAT flashcards on the endocrine system to get me through my first exam. I tend to agree with those on here who say - who cares when you learned the material if you learned it in the end, and thoroughly at that? With the volume of material on the MCAT, it wasn't enough to cram starting the night before, or the week before, or the month before. I had to know the material through and through precisely because cramming was impossible.