Does the AAMC really expect us to know this?

[AWolfman]

I mean I know "generally" how the TCA goes, but not particularly each molecule and how they are converted.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BelieveMeChile]

Yeah I remember that. I guess you're supposed to use some deductive reasoning on that. I.e. How many carbons does each step have should be giving you a pretty good idea of where on the TCA cycle those are. Then you can use the names of the enzymes of each step to determine what is happening and from that deduce what X is. I think?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[salemstein]

Might wanna take down that pic. I see ur real name on top (unless thats a fake name)

 

[aldol16]

You should be able to reason chemically, meaning that you should be able to see a substrate and a product and immediately infer what must have come in between. (And in this case, you must be able to convert name to structure and vice versa). So you have an aliphatic linkage between two carboxylic acids and what you're doing is basically oxidizing one of the carbons. How would you do something like that in organic synthesis? Well, one way would be to make an alkene and then hydrate it. And that's exactly what nature does.

 

[DesitnationMD]

You should be able to reason chemically, meaning that you should be able to see a substrate and a product and immediately infer what must have come in between. (And in this case, you must be able to convert name to structure and vice versa). So you have an aliphatic linkage between two carboxylic acids and what you're doing is basically oxidizing one of the carbons. How would you do something like that in organic synthesis? Well, one way would be to make an alkene and then hydrate it. And that's exactly what nature does.

true, but even if you know its an alkene, these are nto IUPAC names, and so would you not need to have these molecule's structure memorized? that seems counterintutive to the new mcat supposed emphasis on reasoning and thinking.

How can you get from knowing its an alkene to the actual name witout random memorizaion?

 

[aldol16]

true, but even if you know its an alkene, these are nto IUPAC names, and so would you not need to have these molecule's structure memorized? that seems counterintutive to the new mcat supposed emphasis on reasoning and thinking.

How can you get from knowing its an alkene to the actual name witout random memorizaion?

The answer is to not do random memorization, emphasis on the word "random." Let's be clear about this. The MCAT requires you to know all the metabolic pathways by heart. You don't have to "memorize" all the structures per se if you can remember that acetyl-CoA starts the Krebs cycle and in the end, you have to re-generate oxaloacetate. From there, it's all chemistry. The MCAT expects you to have, in your undergraduate experience, either done enough problems or used basic metabolic principles so much in research that you understand the steps. I will tell you right now that if you don't know glycolysis, Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation, you will not do well at all on either C/P or B/BC. The MCAT is based on reasoning, but you have to start from somewhere and this is the starting point.

For example, I never set out to simply memorize the metabolic pathways. I'm a chemist, so I tried to understand each and every step. So I didn't just memorize that NADH is needed at X step, which does Y. I can reason that to get from succinate to fumarate, you've done an oxidation and therefore you need a cofactor because enzymes don't do oxidations by themselves. Since you're forming a double bond, it's likely FAD since that's the general trend. That's the kind of reasoning the MCAT expects you to be able to do.

Bottom line: You must know the structures and names of the intermediates of the central metabolic pathways. If you have to memorize it, you have to memorize it. But hopefully at this point, you have seen it enough that you understand it.

 

[DesitnationMD]

The answer is to not do random memorization, emphasis on the word "random." Let's be clear about this. The MCAT requires you to know all the metabolic pathways by heart. You don't have to "memorize" all the structures per se if you can remember that acetyl-CoA starts the Krebs cycle and in the end, you have to re-generate oxaloacetate. From there, it's all chemistry. The MCAT expects you to have, in your undergraduate experience, either done enough problems or used basic metabolic principles so much in research that you understand the steps. I will tell you right now that if you don't know glycolysis, Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation, you will not do well at all on either C/P or B/BC. The MCAT is based on reasoning, but you have to start from somewhere and this is the starting point.

For example, I never set out to simply memorize the metabolic pathways. I'm a chemist, so I tried to understand each and every step. So I didn't just memorize that NADH is needed at X step, which does Y. I can reason that to get from succinate to fumarate, you've done an oxidation and therefore you need a cofactor because enzymes don't do oxidations by themselves. Since you're forming a double bond, it's likely FAD since that's the general trend. That's the kind of reasoning the MCAT expects you to be able to do.

Bottom line: You must know the structures and names of the intermediates of the central metabolic pathways. If you have to memorize it, you have to memorize it. But hopefully at this point, you have seen it enough that you understand it.

Really? When I took the new MCAT last year I didn't see anything that required that level of memorization, and the vast majority of AAMC Qs do not either. Had the AAMc said they now require us to know all intermediated from glycolysis to ETC? I don't think so.

Let's say your guess about what they require is correct, and they suddenly want us to know way more intricate details on biochem intermediates than they ever did before (seems opposed to their changes but ok), I would say that the effort reqired to do all this rote memorization, cause be honest, that what it is, could be better spend doing other, more high yield areas. my thoughts are: "is this a legit thing to memorize for the new exam"?, in my experiene and gongi based of all previous aamc items and histroy, no. BUT, I coudl see them using these kidns of questions very infrequently, to seperate the 129-129 from the 130+ scorers.

what do you think? I just can't seem them require a whole new level of minutae memorization with this exam, not based on the aamcs histry, nto based on what they have said about this new exam, and not based on my own aamc prep and real test experience. This could also be just a bgi mistake. when they released the sample test I used last year, their were a few questions that requried random info, constants that the AAMC had never requried us to know. we all panicked, but afetr a few weeks it was corrected, yet the aamc never admitted their mistakes.

anyone else who has taken the real thing want to weight in, let us know if you have seen questions that required rote memorization of a biochem intermediate? would be nice to know for this years crop to have more accurate ideas of how much we really need to know. studying smarter is way betetr than studying harder.

 

[aldol16]

Really? When I took the new MCAT last year I didn't see anything that required that level of memorization, and the vast majority of AAMC Qs do not either. Had the AAMc said they now require us to know all intermediated from glycolysis to ETC? I don't think so.

Let's say your guess about what they require is correct, and they suddenly want us to know way more intricate details on biochem intermediates than they ever did before (seems opposed to their changes but ok), I would say that the effort reqired to do all this rote memorization, cause be honest, that what it is, could be better spend doing other, more high yield areas. my thoughts are: "is this a legit thing to memorize for the new exam"?, in my experiene and gongi based of all previous aamc items and histroy, no. BUT, I coudl see them using these kidns of questions very infrequently, to seperate the 129-129 from the 130+ scorers.

what do you think? I just can't seem them require a whole new level of minutae memorization with this exam, not based on the aamcs histry, nto based on what they have said about this new exam, and not based on my own aamc prep and real test experience. This could also be just a bgi mistake. when they released the sample test I used last year, their were a few questions that requried random info, constants that the AAMC had never requried us to know. we all panicked, but afetr a few weeks it was corrected, yet the aamc never admitted their mistakes.

anyone else who has taken the real thing want to weight in, let us know if you have seen questions that required rote memorization of a biochem intermediate? would be nice to know for this years crop to have more accurate ideas of how much we really need to know. studying smarter is way betetr than studying harder.

You do realize that upon taking the test, we all signed a contract to not divulge specific details. Why do you think I don't give specific examples? What I'm telling you is that if you don't know glycolysis and the TCA cycle and what's required for the general pathway, e.g. why you need NAD, for example, then you're in for a rude awakening. I'm not saying that's all you need to know - you need to know these things and then reason from there. Say, if I told you that there's a disease that reduced [NAD] and asked you which of the following glycolytic intermediates would build up, etc. you better know that or have a way of figuring it out.

If you go through this trying to memorize all the intermediates, you won't do well either way. But if you understand each step and why it must occur, then at that level of understanding, you should know the intermediates.

Understanding the central metabolic pathways of life is not "random" information but something that is emphasized given the focus of the new exam. It's a good opportunity for the AAMC to test on integration of chemical, physical, and biological principles. It's also why you need to take biochemistry before the new exam.

 

[ChrisMack390]

As a general rule, if you find yourself bogged down by memorizing excessive detail, you are not studying for the MCAT correctly.

 

[DesitnationMD]

You do realize that upon taking the test, we all signed a contract to not divulge specific details. Why do you think I don't give specific examples? What I'm telling you is that if you don't know glycolysis and the TCA cycle and what's required for the general pathway, e.g. why you need NAD, for example, then you're in for a rude awakening. I'm not saying that's all you need to know - you need to know these things and then reason from there. Say, if I told you that there's a disease that reduced [NAD] and asked you which of the following glycolytic intermediates would build up, etc. you better know that or have a way of figuring it out.

Understanding the central metabolic pathways of life is not "random" information but something that is emphasized given the focus of the new exam. It's a good opportunity for the AAMC to test on integration of chemical, physical, and biological principles. It's also why you need to take biochemistry before the new exam.

Who asked for details? check and see how many threads there are on gernal info the AAMC tended to test last year. "i had lots on enzymes" " I saw no orgo" "I got some magnetism". This seems to be pretty common on SDN and well within the bounds of the online rules. Mods feel free to correct but the evidence is all there. also, the aamc official stance is that there are no (https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/taking-mcat-exam/prepare-mcat-exam/) official required classes. I know this is technically b.s. and i see wh ythey do it, but i never took biochem before my mcat, and i know plenty of others who did not either. would it have made my lfie eaasier, sure, but I would nto say its required, no more than a full course of psychology or sociology is required. but hey, maybe thats just me. i just avoid making sweeping statements about the exam as much as i can.

For some reason I thought you said you had not taken the MCAT yet, did I remember wrong? And i never said this was "random" memorization, no more than memorizing the universal gas constant would be random to the MCAT, but they sure as heck do NOT expect it. I only ask where you get this strong statement that yes, you must know all the intermediates of the central pathway by heart consdiering that kind of thinking has never been the stated goal of the mcat and an exception even when looknig at thousands of aamc practice questions.
one area where I definitely can say they are sticklers for memorizing details is w/ the amino acids. names, abbeviations, chem properties, it was all tested in one way or another. but, even then i cant recall a single q where i was expected to spot and recognize a random amino acid by structure. maybe some of the unique ones like glycine but beyond that, not much. it simple isnt what the test is about and all my experience with the new exam and the feedback on sdn and reddit seems to support that.

If you did take the mcat, would you say your experience was diff than mine in this regard to biochem minutae?

 

[DesitnationMD]

As a general rule, if you find yourself bogged down by memorizing excessive detail, you are not studying for the MCAT correctly.

this +10000

 

[aldol16]

Who asked for details? check and see how many threads there are on gernal info the AAMC tended to test last year. "i had lots on enzymes" " I saw no orgo" "I got some magnetism". This seems to be pretty common on SDN and well within the bounds of the online rules. Mods feel free to correct but the evidence is all there. also, the aamc official stance is that there are no (https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/taking-mcat-exam/prepare-mcat-exam/) official required classes. I know this is technically b.s. and i see wh ythey do it, but i never took biochem before my mcat, and i know plenty of others who did not either. would it have made my lfie eaasier, sure, but I would nto say its required, no more than a full course of psychology or sociology is required. but hey, maybe thats just me. i just avoid making sweeping statements about the exam as much as i can.

You're asking for detail: "anyone else who has taken the real thing want to weight in, let us know if you have seen questions that required rote memorization of a biochem intermediate?" Here's my take: I would know the glycolytic intermediates very well. Not rote memorization of structure because that implies limited understanding. I would emphasize understanding each step and why it occurs.

For some reason I thought you said you had not taken the MCAT yet, did I remember wrong? And i never said this was "random" memorization, no more than memorizing the universal gas constant would be random to the MCAT, but they sure as heck do NOT expect it. I only ask where you get this strong statement that yes, you must know all the intermediates of the central pathway by heart consdiering that kind of thinking has never been the stated goal of the mcat and an exception even when looknig at thousands of aamc practice questions.

Take a look at the Section Bank. One of the questions posted here last night was a case-in-point. I don't remember if it was an AAMC FL or Section Bank question but the effect of it was basically what is the intermediate between succinate and malate (succinate and malate were given in structure form and the answer was given in name form). Also, I did take the MCAT and I don't remember saying I hadn't taken it on here.

one area where I definitely can say they are sticklers for memorizing details is w/ the amino acids. names, abbeviations, chem properties, it was all tested in one way or another. but, even then i cant recall a single q where i was expected to spot and recognize a random amino acid by structure. maybe some of the unique ones like glycine but beyond that, not much. it simple isnt what the test is about and all my experience with the new exam and the feedback on sdn and reddit seems to support that.

Let's say that from my experience on the real thing, one would be well-served to know the structures of the amino acids and be able to convert from name to structure quickly. Very quickly.

Moreover, the central metabolic pathways of life are not biochem minutiae. They are the point of biochem itself. That's like saying Freud's and Skinner's theories are the minutiae of psychology. Or that mechanisms are organic chem minutiae.

 

[DesitnationMD]

You're asking for detail: "anyone else who has taken the real thing want to weight in, let us know if you have seen questions that required rote memorization of a biochem intermediate?" Here's my take: I would know the glycolytic intermediates very well. Not rote memorization of structure because that implies limited understanding. I would emphasize understanding each step and why it occurs.



Take a look at the Section Bank. One of the questions posted here last night was a case-in-point. I don't remember if it was an AAMC FL or Section Bank question but the effect of it was basically what is the intermediate between succinate and malate (succinate and malate were given in structure form and the answer was given in name form). Also, I did take the MCAT and I don't remember saying I hadn't taken it on here.



Let's say that from my experience on the real thing, one would be well-served to know the structures of the amino acids and be able to convert from name to structure quickly. Very quickly.

Moreover, the central metabolic pathways of life are not biochem minutiae. They are the point of biochem itself. That's like saying Freud's and Skinner's theories are the minutiae of psychology. Or that mechanisms are organic chem minutiae.

I know your a chemist so let me state I meant no offense to your field of study. To be a bit cliched the word minutiae does mean "the small, precise, or trivial details of something." I am not saying these pathways are minutae, but many details of them are as it relates to the MCAT. This does not mean these details are not important to biochem, not key to biochem, not important in some contexts, but memorizing, or as you call learning, the specific intermediates in a series of pathways is the very definition of minutiae and not the kind of thing the AAMC emphasizes. Much of it could be considered minutiae when it comes to biochem on the MCAT. Starting product & ending product, sure, purpose of the pathway, sure, how if relates to alternative catabolic/anabolic pathways you bet. I'd even say that key regulatory steps in the central pathway and the others would be fair game and should be studied. However, the wholesale commitment of all of these details, is the antithesis of MCAT studying and from much of what I've seen here, the web and on my own MCAT, well outside what is effective studying for the exam.

don;t have the section bank, took my exam already befroe it came out. but if this was 1 q or even 10 questions among hundreds, it just serves to underscore my point. time spent memorizing this minutae will NOT pay off in any meaning ful way for the average tester, and that time could be better spend elseehwere on more important, i.e. high yeild material before delving into detail of any 1 topic.

the statement you made abotu your test day experience with amino acids was all the "detail" I was asking for. perfectly acceptable to the AAMC, sdn and the online community as far as all evidence shows. Please do not be so quick to throw out accusatory statments refrenceing the NDA we sign taknig the exam.

Agree to disagree. Your experience with biochemsitry was likely vastly different than mine. You mcat mileage may vary as well. I know that in med school come august I will learn begin to it all anyway ;-) kudos to your commitment, i just dont want to see students potnetially freaknig out over details like we did last year if we cna avoid it. enjoy your weekend!

 

[aldol16]

I know your a chemist so let me state I meant no offense to your field of study. To be a bit cliched the word minutiae does mean "the small, precise, or trivial details of something." I am not saying these pathways are minutae, but many details of them are as it relates to the MCAT. This does not mean these details are not important to biochem, not key to biochem, not important in some contexts, but memorizing, or as you call learning, the specific intermediates in a series of pathways is the very definition of minutiae and not the kind of thing the AAMC emphasizes. Much of it could be considered minutiae when it comes to biochem on the MCAT. Starting product & ending product, sure, purpose of the pathway, sure, how if relates to alternative catabolic/anabolic pathways you bet. I'd even say that key regulatory steps in the central pathway and the others would be fair game and should be studied. However, the wholesale commitment of all of these details, is the antithesis of MCAT studying and from much of what I've seen here, the web and on my own MCAT, well outside what is effective studying for the exam.

Again, this is your experience with the MCAT and there's nothing I can say that can change that and vice versa. Effective studying does not involve rote memorization of minute details. I have said that time and again on this forum. But rote memorization is different from in-depth understanding. Understanding the metabolic pathways is, again, essentially for MCAT success. Don't memorize the details for the sake of knowing the details. Understand why each reaction works the way it does. For instance, why TPP is required for turning pyruvate into acetyl-CoA. You could approach that as a rote memorization problem, i.e. that the conversion requires TPP, or you could understand it as the requirement for an electron sink when you're decarboxylation an alpha-keto acid. If you learn it in the latter case, you will know it and even now, almost a year after any biochem exposure at that level, I can still draw the relevant part of TPP. That's not memorization - it's understanding.

This is a common reason why many undergraduates hate organic chemistry or other chemistry courses. When we teach it, we teach it as a set of rules (which I disagree with) and undergraduates end up feeling like they have to "memorize" the rules. But no good chemist memorizes all the rules. We have thought about reactions enough that we understand the essence of the rules and thus do not have to memorize them. That means we can also apply these concepts in new ways - much like what the MCAT emphasizes. It seems like you're taking what we're teaching and realizing that memorization is bad - something that we struggle to convey in undergraduate courses - but not taking it as far as we want you to - that is, that understanding is not the same as memorization.

don;t have the section bank, took my exam already befroe it came out. but if this was 1 q or even 10 questions among hundreds, it just serves to underscore my point. time spent memorizing this minutae will NOT pay off in any meaning ful way for the average tester, and that time could be better spend elseehwere on more important, i.e. high yeild material before delving into detail of any 1 topic.

My point is that glycolytic intermediates are high-yield material. I think what you think I mean is memorizing an exact structure such that you can reproduce any and all intermediates for the exam. What I mean is that you should be familiar with the structures at the level of understanding such that when they come up, you can recognize a structure as X if it is drawn for you. Same as for the amino acids. There's little point in memorizing the exact structure of TPP or PLP or NAD, but if it's drawn, you should be able to recognize it (the latter, not so much the former since that's more of a chemist's perspective than AAMC's).

the statement you made abotu your test day experience with amino acids was all the "detail" I was asking for. perfectly acceptable to the AAMC, sdn and the online community as far as all evidence shows. Please do not be so quick to throw out accusatory statments refrenceing the NDA we sign taknig the exam.

I never meant to accuse you or anyone of anything. I'm suggesting caution in terms of asking for whether specific questions showed up that covered a certain topic. How you interpret that is up to you.

 

[DesitnationMD]

We're arguing semantics here. From what I can gather you don't favor memorization, but you tell students they better have an "understanding" such that they recognize all intermediate structures by sight. The end result being invest enough time such that your memorize/understand but in any case commit to memory the intermediates and their exact structures of the central pathway. to me that runs entirely opposite to "understanding > memorization" you are correctly touting. I think we both agree that some memorization, rightly or wrongly, is required for the MCAT. We also agree that memorization is NOT as good as a solid understanding.

I think where we differ is what level of understanding is needed for or expected of us by the AAMC and the exam, and what is high yeild or WORTH taknig the time ot memorize and/or udnerstand. your a chemist so you have a deeper understanding of all of this than me. I can confidently state that I have a much better graps of all the physics the MCAt tests than most, but I would not go about telling students to memorize the minutae I had to learn, even for the sake of "udnerstanding" when it comes to the MCAT. its a waste of valuable study time.

If you expeience on test day tells you one thing, and mine another, we need more data to make any conclusions. All i can say is from gongi through all the aamc material i had, and taking the new exam, and seeing all the feedback from my fellow testers from 2015, my opnions is this info is unlikely to be high yeild. If your mcat was diff, so be it. Odds are we are both a bit wrong and a bit right, only the AAMC gods know for sure.

As for your NDA referral, using language like invoking the legal agreement with the AAMC in my request for general comments sabout test day experiences, you had to know was a bit inflammatory, esp on an online forum. Interprtation aside, its gonig to raise soem eyebrows and easily comes off as accusatory. If thats nto how you meant it that's fine, but language like that is surely something you know would rustle a few jimmies.

I am glad to see I am not the only one killing a friday evening on here. Love the back and forth!

 

[aldol16]

We're arguing semantics here. From what I can gather you don't favor memorization, but you tell students they better have an "understanding" such that they recognize all intermediate structures by sight. The end result being invest enough time such that your memorize/understand but in any case commit to memory the intermediates and their exact structures of the central pathway. to me that runs entirely opposite to "understanding > memorization" you are correctly touting. I think we both agree that some memorization, rightly or wrongly, is required for the MCAT. We also agree that memorization is NOT as good as a solid understanding.

Committing to memory via understanding is not the same as committing to memory via memorization. One lasts longer than the other. That one also costs more time. I argue that it's time well spent. You don't think so. I don't see how we'll get anywhere other than I've taken a more recent exam. How different that is from yours, I have no idea.

I think where we differ is what level of understanding is needed for or expected of us by the AAMC and the exam, and what is high yeild or WORTH taknig the time ot memorize and/or udnerstand. your a chemist so you have a deeper understanding of all of this than me. I can confidently state that I have a much better graps of all the physics the MCAt tests than most, but I would not go about telling students to memorize the minutae I had to learn, even for the sake of "udnerstanding" when it comes to the MCAT. its a waste of valuable study time.

The problem is what you're calling "minutiae" is the crux of biochemistry. I don't have a problem not memorizing random facts like Planck's constant. I do have a problem when you, from what I gather without having taken biochemistry, are making sweeping statements that knowing the glycolytic intermediates is not important. For the MCAT, I'm telling you that it is essential. Maybe not in your experience, but in mine definitely so. That argument isn't getting anywhere.

As for your NDA referral, using language like invoking the legal agreement with the AAMC in my request for general comments sabout test day experiences, you had to know was a bit inflammatory, esp on an online forum. Interprtation aside, its gonig to raise soem eyebrows and easily comes off as accusatory. If thats nto how you meant it that's fine, but language like that is surely something you know would rustle a few jimmies.

I really can't help how you or others interpret things and I frankly do not care. I am here to provide my own honest feedback and advice and you are here to do the same. How that is interpreted is not up to us.

I am glad to see I am not the only one killing a friday evening on here. Love the back and forth!

When you're a grad student and it's a Friday night after social and you're trying to get a paper out, you tend to be in lab running experiments and certain experiments tend to have long wait times. I got sick of reading journals.

 

[DesitnationMD]

The problem is what you're calling "minutiae" is the crux of biochemistry. I don't have a problem not memorizing random facts like Planck's constant. I do have a problem when you, from what I gather without having taken biochemistry, are making sweeping statements that knowing the glycolytic intermediates is not important. For the MCAT, I'm telling you that it is essential. Maybe not in your experience, but in mine definitely so. That argument isn't getting anywhere.

.

Right there. From what I gather, you don't have a level of physics understanding that I do, yet you are free to call Plank's constant a random fact. i thikn you fail to grasp how important to quantum mechanics, the very working of our universe, depend on this random fact. not to mention tested areas of electrostatics, magentism, wave and particel physics on the Mcat. You call this unimportant, and it is to the MCAT. But NOT to a true understanding of the physics underlying the materail, which you likely do nto have in physics. The level of understanding you seem to recomend for biochem does not extend to fields of which you have less detailed understanding.

Yet when I expcress a similar sentiment regarding biochem details, you take offense and claim it is high yield and crucial to understanding. The latter is true from a chemistry standpoint, the former is your opinion. Neither of which helps when deciding how much to learn for the mcat. yuo say 1 thing, i say another. Can you get by the E&M on the mcat without memrozing planks, sure. Do you necessarily need it, last year people would have said yes because it came up on a few random Qs among hundreds. Is it helpful for a solid understanding of the physics, I know it is. But it really ain't for the MCAT.

As for biochem. Do I need to know the minutae of all intermediates to understand biochem for the MCAT. you claim that for a true udnerstanding, I do. I buy that 100%! Do i need that level of understanding for MCAt success. My own experience and the history of the test itself says it is unlikely. I cant say no for sure, not yet, not without more testing cycles. I will concede that until we know otherwise, if a student can master it and has the time, after more improtant info is leanred, learnnig ALL the intermediates of the central pathways could yeild some points. I would also state the same is true of more complex particle physics and E&M material. Is it likely, heck no, possibel sure. Saying any of the new material is high yield is speculation for now.

And if you are gonig to be a phyisician, you will need to learn to care how your words are interpreted, intent or not. I imagine in your field, like mine your words must be chosen very carefully and accurately, with thought given to your impact, not just your intent. not trying to argue for a safe space but just be careful when not so subtly bring up the possiblity of violating a legal agreement with the entity that controsl all of our futures. if I seem sensitive, my bad, i just don't want things like that brought up in refrence to MY sdn activities. Apology accepted.

My reasons for being here on a Friday are not so glamorous. I just have little classwork as a senior, im already accepted, and my job allows me considerable freedom to use the interwebs when im not busy. frankly im just that big a nerd. not much to do on overngiths at the hopstital. And please do nto consdier any of these postinging to be acromnious. I do enjoy healthy disagreement.

 

[aldol16]

Right there. From what I gather, you don't have a level of physics understanding that I do, yet you are free to call Plank's constant a random fact. i thikn you fail to grasp how important to quantum mechanics, the very working of our universe, depend on this random fact. not to mention tested areas of electrostatics, magentism, wave and particel physics on the Mcat. You call this unimportant, and it is to the MCAT. But NOT to a true understanding of the physics underlying the materail, which you likely do nto have in physics. The level of understanding you seem to recomend for biochem does not extend to fields of which you have less detailed understanding.

I did not call Planck's constant unimportant. I said memorizing Planck's constant is not particularly useful. Just like saying memorizing pi isn't helpful but that's not to say that it's not central to our understanding of the world. Again, I cannot control how you interpret my statements. I also think you underestimate what sorts of classes a chemistry graduate student must take. Let's just say that I am intimately acquainted with Planck's constant and, the more useful form, "h bar." Memorizing it is useless; understanding what it means and when to use it is important.

Now, the better analogy would have been that memorizing Planck's constant is like memorizing structures at large. I agree with that. But memorizing structures at large is not equivalent to understanding chemical logic. In fact, a physicist would likely have Planck's constant down just because it's so fundamental. But a physicist understands Planck's constant and what it represents - all without having to consciously commit it to memory for any exam. Now, I am not saying that a student taking the MCAT needs to have the level of understanding of a PhD physicist or chemist or biologist. That would be absurd. I'm saying that a student taking the MCAT needs to have a level of understanding deeper than what you appear (again, I'm interpreting here) to be advocating but not as deep as a PhD student.

Glycolysis appears on the MCAT more than a few times. I am also not a biochemist so I don't know why you think that (again, probably an interpretation issue). I'm an organometallic chemist if that would help frame the argument. I would also be a little wary of using the term "my field" because that is usually taken to mean ongoing research in a given niche in a given discipline. I'm interpreting here and could be very wrong, but it sounds like you're wrapping up undergraduate study in a certain major - while you may be involved in some research and may have taken some graduate courses in physics, most graduate students would object to an undergraduate calling him/herself a "physicist" and referring to a field of physics as "my field" without undergoing PhD-level training in physics. That's my perspective as a graduate student - entirely my opinion.

As for biochem. Do I need to know the minutae of all intermediates to understand biochem for the MCAT. you claim that for a true udnerstanding, I do. I buy that 100%! Do i need that level of understanding for MCAt success. My own experience and the history of the test itself says it is unlikely. I cant say no for sure, not yet, not without more testing cycles. I will concede that until we know otherwise, if a student can master it and has the time, after more improtant info is leanred, learnnig ALL the intermediates of the central pathways could yeild some points. I would also state the same is true of more complex particle physics and E&M material. Is it likely, heck no, possibel sure. Saying any of the new material is high yield is speculation for now.

Depends on what you mean by minutiae. If you're talking about structures and names, then yes, I believe those are absolutely necessary and central to success on B/BC and C/P. Yes, I have encountered >10 questions that required that knowledge in AAMC study materials. How many I encountered on the exam I will keep to myself as per my agreement.

And if you are gonig to be a phyisician, you will need to learn to care how your words are interpreted, intent or not. I imagine in your field, like mine your words must be chosen very carefully and accurately, with thought given to your impact, not just your intent. not trying to argue for a safe space but just be careful when not so subtly bring up the possiblity of violating a legal agreement with the entity that controsl all of our futures. if I seem sensitive, my bad, i just don't want things like that brought up in refrence to MY sdn activities. Apology accepted.

I'm glad your interpretation of my statements yielded an apology though I meant to offer none. I will not apologize for my advice on this forum. It is freely offered and each reader can gauge its merits for him/herself. If you're sensitive to mere suggestions, I would reconsider your field, whatever that may be since "suggestion" and "feedback" forms the crux of science. Which brings me to my final point. If I am to be a physician, I would endeavor not to give medical advice on an anonymous online forum, so how my words are interpreted online is moot. On here, readers get uncensored, unbiased advice from me and that is how it will remain. If somebody wants to interpret my words a certain way, so be it. It's not on me.

My reasons for being here on a Friday are not so glamorous. I just have little classwork as a senior, im already accepted, and my job allows me considerable freedom to use the interwebs when im not busy. frankly im just that big a nerd. not much to do on overngiths at the hopstital. And please do nto consdier any of these postinging to be acromnious. I do enjoy healthy disagreement.

My congratulations on your acceptance. As for me, I am not yet certain whether I will apply now or later. My advisor wants me to stay on because I've been pretty productive and it may be worthwhile to stay on for a bit to finish my PhD. Are you a bit intoxicated or typing on a phone? Some parts of your posts are difficult to read because of the spelling.

 

[DesitnationMD]

I did not call Planck's constant unimportant. I said memorizing Planck's constant is not particularly useful. Just like saying memorizing pi isn't helpful but that's not to say that it's not central to our understanding of the world. Again, I cannot control how you interpret my statements. I also think you underestimate what sorts of classes a chemistry graduate student must take. Let's say that I am intimately acquainted with Planck's constant and, the more useful form, "h bar." Memorizing it is useless; understanding what it means and when to use it is important.

Now, the better analogy would have been that memorizing Planck's constant is like memorizing structures at large. I agree with that. But memorizing structures at large is not equivalent to understanding chemical logic. In fact, a physicist would likely have Planck's constant down just because it's so fundamental. But a physicist understands Planck's constant and what it represents - all without having to consciously commit it to memory for any exam. Now, I am not saying that a student taking the MCAT needs to have the level of understanding of a PhD physicist or chemist or biologist. That would be absurd. I'm saying that a student taking the MCAT needs to have a level of understanding deeper than what you appear (again, I'm interpreting here) to be advocating.

Glycolysis appears on the MCAT more than a few times. I am also not a biochemist so I don't know why you think that (again, probably an interpretation issue). I'm an organometallic chemist if that would help frame the argument.



Depends on what you mean by minutiae. If you're talking about structures and names, then yes, I believe those are absolutely necessary and central to success on B/BC and C/P. Yes, I have encountered >10 questions that required that knowledge in AAMC study materials. How many I encountered on the exam I will keep to myself as per my agreement.



I'm glad your interpretation of my statements yielded an apology though I meant to offer none. I will not apologize for my advice on this forum. It is freely offered and each reader can gauge its merits for him/herself. If you're sensitive to mere suggestions, I would reconsider your field, whatever that may be since "suggestion" and "feedback" forms the crux of science. Which brings me to my final point. If I am to be a physician, I would endeavor not to give medical advice on an anonymous online forum, so how my words are interpreted online is moot. On here, readers get uncensored, unbiased advice from me and that is how it will remain. If somebody wants to interpret my words a certain way, so be it. It's not on me.



My congratulations on your acceptance. As for me, I am not yet certain whether I will apply now or later. My advisor wants me to stay on because I've been pretty productive and it may be worthwhile to stay on for a bit to finish my PhD. Are you a bit intoxicated or typing on a phone? Some parts of your posts are difficult to read because of the spelling.

Your condescension just keeps getting more egregious. A chem major is going to lecture and impress with their "uderstanding of h bar"? Really? i don't doubt you've taken some classes, but to actually compare your understanding of physics, then SPEAK for what a physicist would know, is astounding. Your apparent hubris is all too common among pre-meds.

I never called your minutae unimpotant, just as I responded when you called Plank's a random fact. it is a random fact to you, but to me it is not, not at the lvel of physics i work with. It sure isnt too useful to the MCAt though, and not necessary for an MCAt level of understanding. Just as I never called your biochem random facts unimportant, but they are no less random than Planck's. They are just not as valuable to the MCAT as I have seen it and has been expressed on SN many times. Just as the vast expanse of physics i have that likely you do not is minutae, and not valuable to the MCAT. The level of understanding for the MCAT vs for true mastery are not the same thing. If you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. The level of understanding you advocate is not bad, it just may not be necessary and potentialy a waste fo valuable time, as i would say to ANY pre med who asked my to delve into details on particle physics and concepts related to the very rudimentary material on the mcat. My mastery of physics was not necessary to my mcat success, nor was the level of biochem mastery you advocate. If you cannot accept that without needing to condescend or talk down or show how "mistaken" others are, its no wonder this forum is seemingly such a large consumer of your time.

As for your divulging of test experience, you clearly misunderstood what i asked for as you gave me exactly what I asked for, yet still claim that to divulge more would be against your agreement. No one asked for more, you read too much into statments as much as you can to take "the high road" its become quite clear from your posts in this thread how important you think you are.

I value your contribution to this forum, but if you cannot stand to be wrong or possibly disagreed with, you will not last long in any profession, let alone the sciences. I chalk up my bad typing to a lifetime of coding and typnig in languages you would not undertand (please do nto reply with how much "coding" you have really done) and just the relaxed atmosphere i usually find here. I hope your disdain for people who disgree with you can be chalked up to late nights in the lab or being over-tired.

Enjoy your evening.

/thread

 

[aldol16]

Your condescension just keeps getting more egregious. A chem major is going to lecture and impress with their "uderstanding of h bar"? Really? i don't doubt you've taken some classes, but to actually compare your understanding of physics, then SPEAK for what a physicist would know, is astounding. Your apparent hubris is all too common among pre-meds.

I don't purport to speak for what a physicist would know. That's because I do not consider you a physicist if you are an undergraduate who simply majored in physics. Not anymore than I would consider myself a chemist a few years ago when I graduated. Again, you are free to disagree. That is not my concern. Some of my best friends are physicists and we often have lunch together because they collaborate on several of the projects coming out of my lab. I don't speak for them but I do speak for myself, who went through a rigorous PhD-level training in chemistry including physical chemistry. Interpret that as you will.

I never called your minutae unimpotant, just as I responded when you called Plank's a random fact. it is a random fact to you, but to me it is not, not at the lvel of physics i work with. It sure isnt too useful to the MCAt though, and not necessary for an MCAt level of understanding. Just as I never called your biochem random facts unimportant, but they are no less random than Planck's. They are just not as valuable to the MCAT as I have seen it and has been expressed on SN many times. Just as the vast expanse of physics i have that likely you do not is minutae, and not valuable to the MCAT. The level of understanding for the MCAT vs for true mastery are not the same thing. If you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. The level of understanding you advocate is not bad, it just may not be necessary and potentialy a waste fo valuable time, as i would say to ANY pre med who asked my to delve into details on particle physics and concepts related to the very rudimentary material on the mcat. My mastery of physics was not necessary to my mcat success, nor was the level of biochem mastery you advocate. If you cannot accept that without needing to condescend or talk down or show how "mistaken" others are, its no wonder this forum is seemingly such a large consumer of your time.

I am not suggesting that your success was due to any particular level of understanding of physics or any subject for that matter. That would be silly of me because I do not know you. I am suggesting that, again in my opinion, the level of understanding of material that I have already stated and will not state again for brevity, is essential to MCAT success. Note that this is my opinion. I have never said that your opinion was incorrect - only that it is not my experience or opinion. I believe it is you who cannot accept that there are multiple views. If you feel like I am condescending to you, then perhaps you need to revise your sensitivity. If you feel that you must insult me to feel better about yourself, then perhaps you need to revise your sense of self. I do not particularly care what you do. I am here solely to express my own views, as are you. And these are my views.

I value your contribution to this forum, but if you cannot stand to be wrong or possibly disagreed with, you will not last long in any profession, let alone the sciences. I chalk up my bad typing to a lifetime of coding and typnig in languages you would not undertand (please do nto reply with how much "coding" you have really done) and just the relaxed atmosphere i usually find here. I hope your disdain for people who disgree with you can be chalked up to late nights in the lab or being over-tired.

Not to sound prudish, but I do believe I have been in the sciences longer than you. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I value intellectual discourse and disagreement over my experimental designs and results. Those people I can hold actual discussions with because their arguments have substance. The fact that you disagree with me is fine. But you fail to recognize that it is a disagreement of opinion and not of fact. Your need for insulting me (I actually know no programming languages and would love to learn) speaks more about your own air of arrogance than it does about me.

 

[newbie702]

Hi guys, long time lurker here and I don't want to get in between any arguments, but I recently took the MCAT and I would agree with @aldol16 about knowing the metabolic pathways. It definitely saved my butt on multiple questions in the chem/physics and bio sections. Knowing the amino acids is also very very high yield. That's just my two cents.