FL4 P/S?

[lacrossegirl420]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Took FL4 and got a 132 on p/s, which is a miracle considering I've never broken a 130 on this section. Previously received a 128 on FL2 which felt a LOT harder both while taking it and the actual scoring scale. Is FL4 representative of the real thing? (Should also mention I didn't really do any prep for this section in between...)

 

[KnightDoc]

Took FL4 and got a 132 on p/s, which is a miracle considering I've never broken a 130 on this section. Previously received a 127 on FL2 which felt a LOT harder both while taking it and the actual scoring scale. Is FL4 representative of the real thing? (Should also mention I didn't really do any prep for this section in between...)

Nothing is really representative of the real thing today, since the real thing has fewer questions on it than any FL!

 

[goodtime]

what did you feel was different about the questions on FL4?

 

[whiteclaww]

i mean... you studied and it's been a while since you've taken FL2. So I am not too surprised?

Good that it happened for you! I am jealous! especially I am also in that 128-129 zone!

 

[JimKimSlim]

In my case, my scores on AAMC FL4 happened to be my average FL scores as well as the scores on the actual test, including the subsections (131/128/130/131). Compared to the actual test, C/P was slightly easier, CARS about the same, B/B much easier, and P/S harder. If the shortened exam accurately reflects your performance, you should receive your AAMC FL average, assuming you don't panick on test day.

 

[KnightDoc]

In my case, my scores on AAMC FL4 happened to be my average FL scores as well as the scores on the actual test, including the subsections (131/128/130/131). Compared to the actual test, C/P was slightly easier, CARS about the same, B/B much easier, and P/S harder. If the shortened exam accurately reflects your performance, you should receive your AAMC FL average, assuming you don't panick on test day.

The good thing about the shortened test is that it is less exhausting. The bad thing is that there are fewer questions over which to spread time, in case you get hung up on some questions. Also, there are less questions over which to spread wrong answers, and 48 and 59 aren't exactly huge sample sizes.

The result is wide reported variances between FLs and actual scores. If you get lucky and happen to hit a higher proportion of questions you get correct on the 48 as compared to the 59, your actual score will spike. It works the other way as well, and people on reddit have been reporting both since testing resumed in May. The old rule about the FL average being a good predictor is out until they either go back to the full length exam or give us shortened FLs.

 

[whiteclaww]

The good thing about the shortened test is that it is less exhausting. The bad thing is that there are fewer questions over which to spread time, in case you get hung up on some questions. Also, there are less questions over which to spread wrong answers, and 48 and 59 aren't exactly huge sample sizes.

The result is wide reported variances between FLs and actual scores. If you get lucky and happen to hit a higher proportion of questions you get correct on the 48 as compared to the 59, your actual score will spike. It works the other way as well, and people on reddit have been reporting both since testing resumed in May. The old rule about the FL average being a good predictor is out until they either go back to the full length exam or give us shortened FLs.

People told me I am wrong for thinking this. But it's good to see someone who agrees with me. lmao.

I've noticed too many people whose scores actually spiked on the real exam. And those have been those individuals who consistently scored 516+ on FLs. This also indicated that if you don't know your stuff well, the COVID exam could negatively affect your score (I also noticed so many people reporting that their scores dropped on the real thing; their average FL scores tended to rest around 505-508, but their actual score dropped to 499-501.)

People say "Oh that's a sampling bias" but have you seen this much sampling bias in the past before the COVID times?

 

[KnightDoc]

People told me I am wrong for thinking this. But it's good to see someone who agrees with me. lmao.

I've noticed too many people whose scores actually spiked on the real exam. And those have been those individuals who consistently scored 516+ on FLs. This also indicated that if you don't know your stuff well, the COVID exam could negatively affect your score (I also noticed so many people reporting that their scores dropped on the real thing; their average FL scores tended to rest around 505-508, but their actual score dropped to 499-501.)

People say "Oh that's a sampling bias" but have you seen this much sampling bias in the past before the COVID times?

No, and for what it's worth, it's not clear that knowing your stuff well will make a difference either.

To a certain extent, how you do on any particular exam also involves an element of luck, since some of the questions are designed to be very convoluted in order achieve the desired distribution of scores, and it's hit or miss whether you'll get them correct, no matter how strong your command of the material. As a result, there is a confidence band around all scores.

The issue now is, with less questions, there is just more variation from test to test, up and down, regardless of whether you are a 500 or a 520. It kind of sucks, but, on the other hand, it is as likely to help as hurt.