For those of you who took the MCAT in late 2012 was BIO significantly harder ?

[kgpremed11]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Okay so, I took the MCAT september 6th and got a 6 in BIO. I took it last year and got a 10 without studying. My dregee is in bio and I have had lots of upper level bio. What practice material best mimics the bio section now? It seems to be very analytical and less dependent on recall. I have EK bio 1001 and TPRH science workbook. SHould I give TBR bio a shot? Also would you say AAMC practice test 3,4,5,7 are kinda out of date? I took only these to perpare for the MCAT and was averaging 8ps 10vr 10bs

my actual MCAT was 4ps 9vr 6bs. I don't think It was nerves. I felt calm taking the test.

 

[Trayshawn]

no, it wasn't unusually difficult. don't come here looking for some kind of justification because it means nothing and doesn't make your application look any better.

Do the cliche thing - use it as motivation. TPRH Bio is supposedly very representative of the BS section. Kaplan section tests also have some tough passages that can better prepare you.

And no, none of the AAMCs are useless if thats what you're trying to get at. Even the oldest one is probably still more predictive of what you might see on test day than the best of the prep company materials.

I truly wish you the best of luck. You may not agree, but I'm SURE nerves got the best of you on test day. To get a 6 in bio, with your background, can not all be due simply to lack of ability.

 

[Roxas]

no, it wasn't unusually difficult. don't come here looking for some kind of justification because it means nothing and doesn't make your application look any better.

Do the cliche thing - use it as motivation. TPRH Bio is supposedly very representative of the BS section. Kaplan section tests also have some tough passages that can better prepare you.

And no, none of the AAMCs are useless if thats what you're trying to get at. Even the oldest one is probably still more predictive of what you might see on test day than the best of the prep company materials.

I truly wish you the best of luck. You mat not agree, but I'm SURE nerves got the best of you on test day. To get a 6 in bio, with your background, can not all be due simply to lack of ability.

I have also heard that TPRH bio is good preparation, but are you denying that the bio section has changed quite a bit in the last year or so? Because there is a lot of talk about these new experimental analysis bio passages that are very different from the typical content recall type passages.

 

[kgpremed11]

no, it wasn't unusually difficult. don't come here looking for some kind of justification because it means nothing and doesn't make your application look any better.

Do the cliche thing - use it as motivation. TPRH Bio is supposedly very representative of the BS section. Kaplan section tests also have some tough passages that can better prepare you.

And no, none of the AAMCs are useless if thats what you're trying to get at. Even the oldest one is probably still more predictive of what you might see on test day than the best of the prep company materials.

I truly wish you the best of luck. You mat not agree, but I'm SURE nerves got the best of you on test day. To get a 6 in bio, with your background, can not all be due simply to lack of ability.

I wasn't nervous in the least. MY AAMC bio average was 10. However on test day I was presented with a couple of passages so dense and confusing, with confusing questions to match, that they took me a while to answer. Defintly harder than bio in 2011. I didnt take the MCAT 8/17 but I heard that bio was killer and made a lot of people retake.

 

[Trayshawn]

I have also heard that TPRH bio is good preparation, but are you denying that the bio section has changed quite a bit in the last year or so? Because there is a lot of talk about these new experimental analysis bio passages that are very different from the typical content recall type passages.

Such bio passages have been around since the 90s. I know because I used those same super old aamc passages for practice.

But even if the passages were harder, the scoring is adjusted appropriately. THus noone should be relying on the "was it just unusually hard" argument

 

[Roxas]

Such bio passages have been around since the 90s. I know because I used those same super old aamc passages for practice.

But even if the passages were harder, the scoring is adjusted appropriately. THus noone should be relying on the "was it just unusually hard" argument

Well I haven't even taken it yet so I don't know for sure. I'm not one to make excuses, I just want to be as prepared as possible.

 

[kgpremed11]

Such bio passages have been around since the 90s. I know because I used those same super old aamc passages for practice.

But even if the passages were harder, the scoring is adjusted appropriately. THus noone should be relying on the "was it just unusually hard" argument

I have a feeling this dude hasnt even taken the MCAT yet.

 

[Roxas]

:

I have a feeling this dude hasnt even taken the MCAT yet.

 

[Jloyay]

Okay so, I took the MCAT september 6th and got a 6 in BIO. I took it last year and got a 10 without studying. My dregee is in bio and I have had lots of upper level bio. What practice material best mimics the bio section now? It seems to be very analytical and less dependent on recall. I have EK bio 1001 and TPRH science workbook. SHould I give TBR bio a shot? Also would you say AAMC practice test 3,4,5,7 are kinda out of date? I took only these to perpare for the MCAT and was averaging 8ps 10vr 10bs

my actual MCAT was 4ps 9vr 6bs. I don't think It was nerves. I felt calm taking the test.

The bio section for my test (Aug. 16th) was definitely harder than many of the AAMC sample ones I tried. I came out hoping for an 85%+ and a 12, but ended up with 10 instead, tying my VR score. Definitely more verbose and reading-involved as compared with those in the sample tests. Think of it like a second VR, with biological knowledge required.

 

[Trayshawn]

I have a feeling this dude hasnt even taken the MCAT yet.

actually, yes i have.

However on test day I was presented with a couple of passages so dense and confusing, with confusing questions to match, that they took me a while to answer. Defintly harder than bio in 2011. I didnt take the MCAT 8/17 but I heard that bio was killer and made a lot of people retake.

in fact, on this exact date too.

 

[TheLadyVanishes]

I took the MCAT in late 2012 and I think that the BS was very similar to AAMC 10 and 11.

When I took the older AAMC tests I would finish 25 minutes early and get a 13. On the real thing, I probably finished about 10 minutes early, sweated bullets over some passages and got a 12.

I think the questions are of the same difficulty but the passages are much denser and difficult to read. I recall the passages in the older tests as being fairly straightforward.

I used only TBR Bio as my only Bio review material. The passages are probably more knowledge based and detail oriented than the MCAT. For example, in one section of the physiology book I scored a 6 or 7 because I forgot too much of the chapter material. Of course you have to have a basic understanding of bio to do well on the MCAT, but I feel like it tests your ability to analyze the passage more than just memorize stuff.

 

[kgpremed11]

I took the MCAT in late 2012 and I think that the BS was very similar to AAMC 10 and 11.

When I took the older AAMC tests I would finish 25 minutes early and get a 13. On the real thing, I probably finished about 10 minutes early, sweated bullets over some passages and got a 12.

I think the questions are of the same difficulty but the passages are much denser and difficult to read. I recall the passages in the older tests as being fairly straightforward.

I used only TBR Bio as my only Bio review material. The passages are probably more knowledge based and detail oriented than the MCAT. For example, in one section of the physiology book I scored a 6 or 7 because I forgot too much of the chapter material. Of course you have to have a basic understanding of bio to do well on the MCAT, but I feel like it tests your ability to analyze the passage more than just memorize stuff.

How do AAMC 8 and 9 compare. I need more practice test. I already took AAMC 3,4,5,7

 

[drngus]

Did anybody take the 9/6 2PM test and think the bio section was any harder than AAMC 10/11?

 

[kgpremed11]

Did anybody take the 9/6 2PM test and think the bio section was any harder than AAMC 10/11?

From what I hear the 9/6 2pm group had harder ps but bio was okay. For us 8am test takers bio was hard but PS seemed relativly straight forward.

 

[Trayshawn]

From my experience, its actually the straightforward ones that are the hardest.
For example, our 8/17 test had a very straight and to the point PS section and a tough to get through BS section, yet quite a bit of us did better in bio.

So, again, bio was not and is not any harder. I consider difficulty by points since, in the end, thats all we care about.

But if you are talking about the ease of reading the passages, then dear god yes. There seems to be a larger proportion of the dense experimental-style passages nowadays. But, once more, that does not make the BS section "tougher." Probably makes it easier in some regards.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I took the test on 8/17 and had what everyone called an experimental-heavy BS section (6 out of 7 passages were bio, all experimental). I ended up with a 14 on BS, so that's the angle I'm coming from when I write the rest of this:

The BS section on the MCAT is not much harder than what you see on the AAMCs. Yes, there are more experimental questions, but the AAMCs still have those questions too (not just 10 and 11). Furthermore, some of the AAMCs are also very experimental heavy; 10, 11, and I think either 7 or 8 or both were also very experimental heavy exams. On top of that you have the Official Guide which is, imo, the most accurate representation of real MCAT bio that you'll find, and TPRH bio which is also quite good.

The idea that experimental bio is something new to the MCAT is a myth that gets repeated every single year on this board and then subsequently forgotten about by the next year before it gets repeated again. If you do a google search you can find archived posts on here from 2003 where people are complaining about the "new experimental BS passages". If you look back at posts made here in the last year, people claim that these passages only started showing up in 2010. If you go back to 2010, they say 2009, and so on and so on. The reality is that these questions are, in fact, nothing new and have been on the exam since before it went CBT. If you want proof, hunt down some ancient prep materials from the early 00s or maybe even the late 90s; in fact, the current Kaplan BS section tests which are extremely good prep for the BS section are largely unchanged from the sections tests from 2003 (according to posts I've seen on here from people who claim to have seen both). The same goes for the BS sections in the Kaplan FLs (ditto).

I think what happens is that a lot of people go into this test expecting the BS section to be like most of their bio tests from college where it's just simple regurgitation and thus get blindsided by the experimental passages on test day. Unfortunately, some test prep material out there reinforces this belief by having passages and questions that only drill details, which further solidifies peoples' beliefs that MCAT bio isn't what it's supposed to be.

 

[Trayshawn]

The idea that experimental bio is something new to the MCAT is a myth that gets repeated every single year on this board and then subsequently forgotten about by the next year before it gets repeated again.

THANK YOU! Thats what I've been saying throughout this whole thread. But apparently, that means I haven't taken the MCAT yet. smh

We're just trying to help you out dude.

 

[wtlax11]

I took 7/27 and I thought the Ochem was definitely the hardest I'd seen on any practice tests. The Bio was pretty similar.

 

[Skizzard]

Took on 8/17 and thought BS was extremely difficult but ended up with a 10. Very little organic chemistry.

 

[Plane]

9/7. Little Organic Chem as a previous poster said. Thought it was the toughest section, but ended up with an 11.

 

[goodluck66]

My lowest score on any of my practice tests for BS was a 10, my max was a 12, and I got a 10 on the 9/1/12 MCAT BS.

On my first practice test ever I got an 11 on BS (AAMC 3). Without a doubt, the real MCAT's bio is harder than AAMC 3's BS. However I would say that VR and PS are exactly the same on all the AAMC's.

BS on AAMC 4, 5, 8, 11 are all about the same difficulty as the real thing. Especially AAMC 11. Sure, the real thing focuses more on experiments, but that doesn't make it harder necessarily.

I'm pretty sure that on the 9/1/12 test, PS was slightly easier than normal (I scored above my average), VR was average (I scored my average), and BS was slightly harder than normal (I scored below my average). It all evens out I think.

 

[Narmerguy]

I took the test on 8/17 and had what everyone called an experimental-heavy BS section (6 out of 7 passages were bio, all experimental). I ended up with a 14 on BS, so that's the angle I'm coming from when I write the rest of this:

The BS section on the MCAT is not much harder than what you see on the AAMCs. Yes, there are more experimental questions, but the AAMCs still have those questions too (not just 10 and 11). Furthermore, some of the AAMCs are also very experimental heavy; 10, 11, and I think either 7 or 8 or both were also very experimental heavy exams. On top of that you have the Official Guide which is, imo, the most accurate representation of real MCAT bio that you'll find, and TPRH bio which is also quite good.

The idea that experimental bio is something new to the MCAT is a myth that gets repeated every single year on this board and then subsequently forgotten about by the next year before it gets repeated again. If you do a google search you can find archived posts on here from 2003 where people are complaining about the "new experimental BS passages". If you look back at posts made here in the last year, people claim that these passages only started showing up in 2010. If you go back to 2010, they say 2009, and so on and so on. The reality is that these questions are, in fact, nothing new and have been on the exam since before it went CBT. If you want proof, hunt down some ancient prep materials from the early 00s or maybe even the late 90s; in fact, the current Kaplan BS section tests which are extremely good prep for the BS section are largely unchanged from the sections tests from 2003 (according to posts I've seen on here from people who claim to have seen both). The same goes for the BS sections in the Kaplan FLs (ditto).

I think what happens is that a lot of people go into this test expecting the BS section to be like most of their bio tests from college where it's just simple regurgitation and thus get blindsided by the experimental passages on test day. Unfortunately, some test prep material out there reinforces this belief by having passages and questions that only drill details, which further solidifies peoples' beliefs that MCAT bio isn't what it's supposed to be.

I took the test in September and also had an experimental heavy section and made a 15 on the BS, so that's the angle I'm coming from.

I found the actual BS to be considerably harder than any of the practice ones, including AAMC 10 and 11. The passages in 10 & 11 weren't really that tricky to follow, and for the most part I felt as though I could usually identify the type of knowledge took to answer a question, even if I didn't have said knowledge.

Multiple times on the actual MCAT BS I had no idea what the question was getting at--I simply couldn't follow the question. It took rereading the question a few times, and then rereading sections of the passage once or twice more, before I was able to have an idea for what the question was pulling at. What's more, there were a couple memorable questions for me where I never figured it out, and made what I thought were good educated answers but that typically hinged on one opaque line in the question or the passage that didn't really seem to warrant the singular attention I was giving to it.

I think it's a mistake to suggest that the results have changed over the years, as the test is normalized so the same proportion of people are going to get the same scores year after year, experimental heavy or not. I also think it is a mistake to think we can generalize the difficulty or ease of any particular test or series of tests from the collection of anecdotes that trickle into the MCAT forum of SDN. There are tens of thousands of people that take the MCAT every year, and this is very much a self-selecting bunch that uses similar preparation and similar guides and with back stories that do not cover the wide range of test-takers. To suggest that past tests were easier, harder, or just as hard based on SDN experiences just doesn't have real justification.

What we can look at are the test materials that the AAMC provides and that the test prep companies provide. Going simply from these materials, particularly the past AAMC tests, I found the BS section on the real thing to be more difficult, more confusing, and more time-consuming than any of the AAMC practice tests. From my experience, I think many people are perhaps downplaying the difficulty too much. That's one test and one person's opinion, take from it what you will.

 

[Sailor Senshi Dermystify]

I took the test in September and also had an experimental heavy section and made a 15 on the BS, so that's the angle I'm coming from.

I found the actual BS to be considerably harder than any of the practice ones, including AAMC 10 and 11. The passages in 10 & 11 weren't really that tricky to follow, and for the most part I felt as though I could usually identify the type of knowledge took to answer a question, even if I didn't have said knowledge.

Multiple times on the actual MCAT BS I had no idea what the question was getting at--I simply couldn't follow the question. It took rereading the question a few times, and then rereading sections of the passage once or twice more, before I was able to have an idea for what the question was pulling at. What's more, there were a couple memorable questions for me where I never figured it out, and made what I thought were good educated answers but that typically hinged on one opaque line in the question or the passage that didn't really seem to warrant the singular attention I was giving to it.

I think it's a mistake to suggest that the results have changed over the years, as the test is normalized so the same proportion of people are going to get the same scores year after year, experimental heavy or not. I also think it is a mistake to think we can generalize the difficulty or ease of any particular test or series of tests from the collection of anecdotes that trickle into the MCAT forum of SDN. There are tens of thousands of people that take the MCAT every year, and this is very much a self-selecting bunch that uses similar preparation and similar guides and with back stories that do not cover the wide range of test-takers. To suggest that past tests were easier, harder, or just as hard based on SDN experiences just doesn't have real justification.

What we can look at are the test materials that the AAMC provides and that the test prep companies provide. Going simply from these materials, particularly the past AAMC tests, I found the BS section on the real thing to be more difficult, more confusing, and more time-consuming than any of the AAMC practice tests. From my experience, I think many people are perhaps downplaying the difficulty too much. That's one test and one person's opinion, take from it what you will.

So should we read journal articles or were you just strong in Bio in general? You had to be pretty strong to get a 15 on BS 😎 or is that bs, lol jk

 

[type12]

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/

AAMC just tweeted this link. I swear I don't remember the Physical and Biological Sciences Cognitive Skills pdf being there before, but human memory is a funny thing.

 

[Narmerguy]

So should we read journal articles or were you just strong in Bio in general? You had to be pretty strong to get a 15 on BS 😎 or is that bs, lol jk

I was strong in Bio in general, so perhaps my experience is not generalizable as I was accustomed to feeling good about most of the biology section. I didn't by any means always get everything right, my practice scores were typically in the 13-15 range. But I think what was unique about the test was I had completely lost that "feeling good" about my answers. I was very unsure about a lot of my answers, and didn't have nearly the same amount of time afterwards.

I'm not sure that I would recommend reading journal articles as you won't have to answer any questions about them and there's difficulty predicting the type of content they'll use on future bio sections. I think it would be better to just make sure you know all the core concepts discussed in that online (linked above) really well. Journal reading could help as well, but I just don't think it's necessary as the majority of us don't do that and plenty of us have scored 12+ on BS without it. Just learn the content really well so that you can recognize what's going on when you read the passage without having to reason it out all the time because you didn't study it enough the first time.

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/

AAMC just tweeted this link. I swear I don't remember the Physical and Biological Sciences Cognitive Skills pdf being there before, but human memory is a funny thing.

That link was definitely there, it is in my opinion the best way to review BS after you've done content review and perhaps in between AAMC testing.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I took the test in September and also had an experimental heavy section and made a 15 on the BS, so that's the angle I'm coming from.

I found the actual BS to be considerably harder than any of the practice ones, including AAMC 10 and 11. The passages in 10 & 11 weren't really that tricky to follow, and for the most part I felt as though I could usually identify the type of knowledge took to answer a question, even if I didn't have said knowledge.

Multiple times on the actual MCAT BS I had no idea what the question was getting at--I simply couldn't follow the question. It took rereading the question a few times, and then rereading sections of the passage once or twice more, before I was able to have an idea for what the question was pulling at. What's more, there were a couple memorable questions for me where I never figured it out, and made what I thought were good educated answers but that typically hinged on one opaque line in the question or the passage that didn't really seem to warrant the singular attention I was giving to it.

I think it's a mistake to suggest that the results have changed over the years, as the test is normalized so the same proportion of people are going to get the same scores year after year, experimental heavy or not. I also think it is a mistake to think we can generalize the difficulty or ease of any particular test or series of tests from the collection of anecdotes that trickle into the MCAT forum of SDN. There are tens of thousands of people that take the MCAT every year, and this is very much a self-selecting bunch that uses similar preparation and similar guides and with back stories that do not cover the wide range of test-takers. To suggest that past tests were easier, harder, or just as hard based on SDN experiences just doesn't have real justification.

What we can look at are the test materials that the AAMC provides and that the test prep companies provide. Going simply from these materials, particularly the past AAMC tests, I found the BS section on the real thing to be more difficult, more confusing, and more time-consuming than any of the AAMC practice tests. From my experience, I think many people are perhaps downplaying the difficulty too much. That's one test and one person's opinion, take from it what you will.

Not being able to follow the question when you're obviously capable of understanding and answering it is more indicative of test anxiety than anything else. I don't think that's a good argument for BS being harder than the practice materials. Test anxiety tends to make people perceive the exam to be harder than it actually is, and distrust their answers more than they should. It's like how people like to claim that the passages and questions on the real MCAT are longer when in reality it's just an illusion created by the lower monitor resolution and 4:3 aspect ratio.

As for the last two paragraphs, if you re-read my post you'll see that I only referenced other SDN users as part of my argument; I also, like you suggested, referenced practice materials from several different prep companies over the last decade as more evidence that things haven't changed.

 

[MedPR]

Okay so, I took the MCAT september 6th and got a 6 in BIO. I took it last year and got a 10 without studying. My dregee is in bio and I have had lots of upper level bio. What practice material best mimics the bio section now? It seems to be very analytical and less dependent on recall. I have EK bio 1001 and TPRH science workbook. SHould I give TBR bio a shot? Also would you say AAMC practice test 3,4,5,7 are kinda out of date? I took only these to perpare for the MCAT and was averaging 8ps 10vr 10bs

my actual MCAT was 4ps 9vr 6bs. I don't think It was nerves. I felt calm taking the test.

You just didn't prep well.

 

[smile8888]

Took the 8/17 Exam. I find the Bio section to be a lot harder than the AAMC bio sections for sure. They were ridiculously dense and confusing; HOWEVER, my score was still reflected by the AAMC averages. averaged 11-12 on AAMC exams and still pulled a 12 on the real thing. Same with PS, I averaged 12-13 on AAMC PS and got a 13 on the real PS.

To be honest, a 4 in PS and a 6 in BS means you probably got more than half of the 52 wrong. I don't see how you can drop 4pts in both PS and BS from your AAMC averages. It almost seems to me that you don't have a good grasp of the content. So I would recommend you to do a more thorough content review...unless it's the nerves that got to you on the test.

 

[ok_record]

The orgo on my BS was substantially more demanding than any of the practice tests.

 

[Narmerguy]

Not being able to follow the question when you're obviously capable of understanding and answering it is more indicative of test anxiety than anything else. I don't think that's a good argument for BS being harder than the practice materials. Test anxiety tends to make people perceive the exam to be harder than it actually is, and distrust their answers more than they should. It's like how people like to claim that the passages and questions on the real MCAT are longer when in reality it's just an illusion created by the lower monitor resolution and 4:3 aspect ratio.

As for the last two paragraphs, if you re-read my post you'll see that I only referenced other SDN users as part of my argument; I also, like you suggested, referenced practice materials from several different prep companies over the last decade as more evidence that things haven't changed.

I understand your point, but I perhaps was not clear enough. It was not simply that I doubted my reasoning or felt doubts about my answer, it was that I just did not feel I had enough information to answer the passages effectively. I made the best shot that I could, and evidently it worked out, but it often felt more like Verbal where I used some reasoning to get to my answer, but didn't really have a strong basis for one answer choice over another--provided I was able to figure out what the question was asking. This was perhaps one of the biggest surprises for me.I have never had trouble understanding questions on any of my practice exams. You may consider that anxiety, but having gone through it, the question style and delivery were often quite different from questions I had seen before. The passages used surprisingly complicated structure and I found myself sometimes rereading a single sentence just to figure out what was going on. On the worst passage, I actually had to hastily draw some figures on my scratch paper because it simply wasn't making sense reading it alone. As far as tests go, I'm a fairly strong test-taker and I am not incredibly hindered by test anxiety.

I wasn't referring specifically to you when I made my comments about extrapolating from limited information. However in that same spirit, I would caution against over-interpreting the information we have. What's covered in the test prep booklets is not always representative of the actual test when we start getting down to small details. For example, many test prep companies' BS books do not accurately capture the nature of the BS section today. Someone could look at these books 10 years later and mistakenly think that these books reflect what the tests were like at this time--which would be a mistake. Even ignoring content, things like scaling and test length and question style can introduce an incredible amount of variability, allowing large populations to profess completely different impressions of the test.

 

[pasiley]

High variation in test scores = not enough studying



The bio is harder but the MCAT is graded based on how everyone does(a curve against students who had your questions in the past) so in the end as long as you perform better than the others, you should be fine.

 

[411309]

You just didn't prep well.

i agree, you need to change your prep completely. 6 in BS ok that sucks..but 4 in PS? that makes it seem like you didnt even study for PS. my real thing felt harder and I scored 4 points lower than my average but I also had a really terrible day. But it wasnt drastically lower (averaged 10 on BS got an 8 on real thing, averaged 10 on VR got a 9 on real thing, averaged 10 on PS got a 9) so really i only fluctuated 1-2 points each section..averaging a 10 on aamcs or w/e and getting a 6 or 4? hm i dont buy it.

 

[Schmitty]

Took the 8/17 Exam. I find the Bio section to be a lot harder than the AAMC bio sections for sure. They were ridiculously dense and confusing; HOWEVER, my score was still reflected by the AAMC averages. averaged 11-12 on AAMC exams and still pulled a 12 on the real thing. Same with PS, I averaged 12-13 on AAMC PS and got a 13 on the real PS.

To be honest, a 4 in PS and a 6 in BS means you probably got more than half of the 52 wrong. I don't see how you can drop 4pts in both PS and BS from your AAMC averages. It almost seems to me that you don't have a good grasp of the content. So I would recommend you to do a more thorough content review...unless it's the nerves that got to you on the test.

Yup, I took the August 17 exam as well. I found the bio to be much harder than any of the AAMC exams. However, I got similar to them - 14, so I can't complain.

 

[neilpryde21]

I took the August 4th and definitely thought it was much harder than any previous AAMC test and the AAMC diagnostic but I'm sure a couple of the really tough ones were experimental. I ended up with 14 in the Bio section on that test which was higher than my 12-13 average on my AAMC practice tests.