For those with high MCAT scores?

[bme94]

Hello,

I really need some advice on how to study for the new MCAT. I have a 3.7 GPA, more than 300 hours of clinical research, 300 hours of non clinical research, been in a couple of clubs, and have done some community volunteering.

There's just one problem. I bombed the MCAT - got a 499. I was absolutely devastated. I studied really hard for it (maybe not in the right way, I'm not sure) and I really need some advice from people that scored high.

I also have a letter from my school's prehealth committee, a letter from an M.D., a non science professor, a science professor, and a teaching assistant (just for extra)

I know I can do better. I believe in myself. I don't want to sit around and feel sorry for myself anymore. What materials did you use and how long did you study for? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[studentdocftw]

Kaplan..whole set for 3 months. Once you get the content down..focus on test taking abilities (remaining cool under pressure, skipping difficult passages, elimination, etc.).

 

[mw18]

Did you take practice tests before the real thing? If so, what was your average and range? If not, that's likely your (or one of) problem(s).

 

[Dr Tony T. Chopper]

On an unrelated note, where is your shadowing hours?

 

[bme94]

Did you take practice tests before the real thing? If so, what was your average and range? If not, that's likely your (or one of) problem(s).

Yes, I did. I think I took 3 practice tests. I think on the AAMC practice test I scored a 70%. On a couple of NEXT Step exams I think I scored a 504.

 

[bme94]

On an unrelated note, where is your shadowing hours?

Oh sorry, forgot to include that. I would say as of right now, 20-25 hours.

 

[BeachBaby]

You are more than just the numbers. The score is above several schools minimums.

 

[Lucca]

You are more than just the numbers. The score is above several schools minimums.

How do you know this? I thought schools didnt have ranges for the new mcat yet on MSAR

To OP: Practice, practice, practice. Nothing can prepare you like practice. Only review content if you miss questions because of a content gap and because it is on the AAMC content list and you can't recall the topic from memory.

 

[Lancer]

You are more than just the numbers. The score is above several schools minimums.

A 499 is between a 24 and a 25, which won't cut it for any MD school regardless of ECs, and probably won't cut it for DO schools either

 

[BeachBaby]

I agree with @Lucca that practice is more important than content review. Western Michigan has a minimum 40th percentile. I remember another school had a minimum of 496.

 

[terra330]

I went from a 56th percentile to 96th percentile score. Main difference was that I focused my studying on topics I knew I was weak in (and I spent a few hours combing through the AAMC's topic lists to figure out my strengths and weaknesses). I didn't bother studying much with things I was strong in. Another thing I did the second time around was that when I was practicing, I held myself to a tighter standard on time than on the real deal -- if I wasn't finishing a section with at least 10 minutes to spare, I treated that as if I couldn't finish. Finally, I don't know if this helped or not, but I deliberately did some practice problems in less than ideal circumstances (noisy, tired, hungry, etc) so that I can get used to thinking in adverse conditions.

I agree with @Lucca that practice is more important than content review. Western Michigan has a minimum 40th percentile. I remember another school had a minimum of 496.

You're not going to get in with that kind of score unless you have an incredible story. Based on the info OP gave us, he/she is a pretty cookie cutter MD applicant.

 

[bme94]

I went from a 56th percentile to 96th percentile score. Main difference was that I focused my studying on topics I knew I was weak in (and I spent a few hours combing through the AAMC's topic lists to figure out my strengths and weaknesses). I didn't bother studying much with things I was strong in. Another thing I did the second time around was that when I was practicing, I held myself to a tighter standard on time than on the real deal -- if I wasn't finishing a section with at least 10 minutes to spare, I treated that as if I couldn't finish. Finally, I don't know if this helped or not, but I deliberately did some practice problems in less than ideal circumstances (noisy, tired, hungry, etc) so that I can get used to thinking in adverse conditions.


You're not going to get in with that kind of score unless you have an incredible story. Based on the info OP gave us, he/she is a pretty cookie cutter MD applicant.

What materials did you find to be the most helpful? And yeah, I guess I am the "cookie cutter" applicant.

 

[CowboyNiceguy]

2-3 months of reading books (allocate that time however you need do, depending on your background) and 1 month of practice tests and briefly reviewing the trouble areas.

 

[GrapesofRath]

While it might not seem obvious at first if you are only getting 70% correct on the AAMC FL that indicates a problem with your preparation and knowledge. I've seen and gone through the AAMC FL's that have been released this past year for when I took the test myself; if you arent scoring great on those it indicates a flaw in preparation and content knowledge.

While we can never convert old and new scores perfectly to give you an idea of what 70% would convert to on old AAMC FLs

On the CBT AAMC 3-11 these were what 70% corresponded to on average for the old FL's

69% on physcial sciences was the lowest score possible that would allow you to get a 9
70% on verbal on average was the lowest you could dip and still get a 9
70% on the Bio put you right in the 9 total.

So at 70% correct, you would be roughly at a 27 or 60th percentile equivalent. On the real deal you got a 499 or roughly equivalent to a 25. So your practice test score was within 2 points of your real score essentially(27 vs 25 if we are converting to the old scale) following classic SDN dogma. My point is if you are getting 30% wrong on the AAMC FL having gone through them exhaustively my feeling is your content understanding and knowledge isnt as great as it could/should be for success.

As for resources, Berkeley Review, old and new AAMC material, Next Step and EK is what I would focus on. In your shoes if you are getting 30% wrong on the FL and have already taken the MCAT once, I would really give BR a good look. Itll see like overkill at first but honestly that could easily be exactly what you need.

 

[Lawpy]

How do you know this? I thought schools didnt have ranges for the new mcat yet on MSAR

To OP: Practice, practice, practice. Nothing can prepare you like practice. Only review content if you miss questions because of a content gap and because it is on the AAMC content list and you can't recall the topic from memory.

I agree with @Lucca that practice is more important than content review. Western Michigan has a minimum 40th percentile. I remember another school had a minimum of 496.

Also important is to practice using the "right method" (entirely dependent on the individual though). Practicing using an error-prone approach will reinforce a bad habit and end up being a waste of time.

 

[bme94]

While it might not seem obvious at first if you are only getting 70% correct on the AAMC FL that indicates a problem with your preparation and knowledge. I've seen and gone through the AAMC FL's that have been released this past year for when I took the test myself; if you arent scoring great on those it indicates a flaw in preparation and content knowledge.

While we can never convert old and new scores perfectly to give you an idea of what 70% would convert to on old AAMC FLs

On the CBT AAMC 3-11 these were what 70% corresponded to on average for the old FL's

69% on physcial sciences was the lowest score possible that would allow you to get a 9
70% on verbal on average was the lowest you could dip and still get a 9
70% on the Bio put you right in the 9 total.

So at 70% correct, you would be roughly at a 27 or 60th percentile equivalent. On the real deal you got a 499 or roughly equivalent to a 25. So your practice test score was within 2 points of your real score essentially(27 vs 25 if we are converting to the old scale) following classic SDN dogma. My point is if you are getting 30% wrong on the AAMC FL having gone through them exhaustively my feeling is your content understanding and knowledge isnt as great as it could/should be for success.

While this may seem doom and gloom, the good news is
a) There is a new AAMC FL from last month you can use to gague your progress after you study more. They also have a 300 question bank.
b) If you can go up from 70% correct to 80-85% that makes a huge difference
Just to give you an idea on the % correct needed for certain scores on the old AAMC FLs for perspective
Bio
11: 80.5-83% 12: 85.5-88%
Physical Sciences
11: 82% 12: 86.7%
Verbal
11: 82% 10: 75%

So even a 10-15% jump in your accuracy and your practice tests would start putting you in the 31-34 range(510-515). A huge improvement. Itll take a lot of work getting that boost, but you have room for improvement.

I appreciate that you took the time to write this out - thank you. That will definitely take a lot of work. I was using Exam Krackers at the time. Were there any materials or any method you specifically found helpful?

 

[Brokemedical]

did you study from resources for the old mcat?

 

[bme94]

did you study from resources for the old mcat?

No, I used the Exam Krackers 2015 edition. A couple of the old Berkeley books too.

 

[Oucher]

im glad i didnt have to worry about the new one

 

[GrapesofRath]

I appreciate that you took the time to write this out - thank you. That will definitely take a lot of work. I was using Exam Krackers at the time. Were there any materials or any method you specifically found helpful?

Berekley Review. It'll see overwhelming but if your background knowledge and understanding isnt good its the best resource out there for it by far.

 

[Lawpy]

I appreciate that you took the time to write this out - thank you. That will definitely take a lot of work. I was using Exam Krackers at the time. Were there any materials or any method you specifically found helpful?

No, I used the Exam Krackers 2015 edition. A couple of the old Berkeley books too.

A little surprised that EK didn't help you out given its success in the MCAT Discussion Forums. Then again, the manuals are pretty brief and you'd need a pretty strong content background already before using them for targeted review.

 

[Wolfpack2014]

A little surprised that EK didn't help you out given its success in the MCAT Discussion Forums. Then again, the manuals are pretty brief and you'd need a pretty strong content background already before using them for targeted review.

I found the EK study material to be great. I took the old MCAT twice and used EK to prep the 2nd time and improved from a 30 to a 38.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

a 499 is really low. This indicates test taking issues and/or issues thinking and problem solving under stress. Don't take it again until you're scoring 510ish on practice exams, you don't want another low score.
Such a low score indicates either lack of understanding of the content, and/or very poor test taking skills. Give yourself time either way

 

[flapjack3d]

first of all, don't take the mcat again unless you know you'll do well. you shouldn't have taken it if your were getting ~499 on practice tests.
i recommend TBR (princeton review for bio however) for content.

 

[terra330]

What materials did you find to be the most helpful? And yeah, I guess I am the "cookie cutter" applicant.

I used Berkley Review mostly, with a little bit of Princeton review (mind you, this was for the old MCAT).

 

[Lawpy]

a 499 is really low. This indicates test taking issues and/or issues thinking and problem solving under stress. Don't take it again until you're scoring 510ish on practice exams, you don't want another low score.
Such a low score indicates either lack of understanding of the content, and/or very poor test taking skills. Give yourself time either way

Yet even despite that, there are some DO schools with medians of 499. It's roughly a 25, so while not great, i wouldn't go far to exaggerate that it's very low.

But yes, OP needs to score well above 510 if he's aiming for MD schools

 

[bme94]

I found the EK study material to be great. I took the old MCAT twice and used EK to prep the 2nd time and improved from a 30 to a 38.

I honestly found myself having to refer to other materials because they left so much out, with the exception of the Biology book.
Their practice exams were quite difficult.

 

[bme94]

I used Berkley Review mostly, with a little bit of Princeton review (mind you, this was for the old MCAT).

I tried using the TBR, but the problem was that the questions were definitely not fitted for the style of the new MCAT

 

[Lawpy]

I honestly found myself having to refer to other materials because they left so much out, with the exception of the Biology book.
Their practice exams were quite difficult.

Right because EK is used for review, not studying content from scratch. It's a targeted review because they specifically discuss what's covered in the AAMC Content Guidelines. So EK isn't for those who don't already have a strong content background.

Try looking into TPR or perhaps take a Kaplan course.

 

[bme94]

first of all, don't take the mcat again unless you know you'll do well. you shouldn't have taken it if your were getting ~499 on practice tests.
i recommend TBR (princeton review for bio however) for content.

I'll give that a try. I also used the AAMC question packs - but the questions were WAY easier than the actual test.

 

[Hushman]

I used TPR and felt that it was a great resource. Get the six book set and even if you've never taken a course on it before you'll be set. I managed to score a 132/131/130/129 and have never taken a biology course past first year. I felt they did a great job at explaining everything thoroughly, and if you manage to take five or six of their full lengths the actual test will be a breeze. The TPR tests really took a lot of studying for, they expected in depth knowledge and required you to use information you already knew along with hints from the passage to really eliminate false choices, and it helped me improve my reading comprehension for the actual test. If you do use TPR though don't be discouraged by your FL scores, I think the max I ever got on one was a 510.

 

[TehTeddy]

I agree with @Lucca that practice is more important than content review. Western Michigan has a minimum 40th percentile. I remember another school had a minimum of 496.

I'm fairly certain aiming for the minimum threshold is a bad plan. Getting past the screen =/= competitive.

 

[Lawpy]

I used TPR and felt that it was a great resource. Get the six book set and even if you've never taken a course on it before you'll be set. I managed to score a 132/131/130/129 and have never taken a biology course past first year. I felt they did a great job at explaining everything thoroughly, and if you manage to take five or six of their full lengths the actual test will be a breeze. The TPR tests really took a lot of studying for, they expected in depth knowledge and required you to use information you already knew along with hints from the passage to really eliminate false choices, and it helped me improve my reading comprehension for the actual test. If you do use TPR though don't be discouraged by your FL scores, I think the max I ever got on one was a 510.

So you'd still recommend taking TPR FLs for good practice? I've been reading alarming posts that the FLs can be ridiculously difficult and demoralizing

 

[Hushman]

So you'd still recommend taking TPR FLs for good practice? I've been reading alarming posts that the FLs can be ridiculously difficult and demoralizing

I loved them. I'd personally much rather take a harder practice test and be relaxed when writing the MCAT than take an easier full length and be completely blindsided when writing the actual test. I only had 7 weeks to study for the MCAT, and so I wrote a TPR full length every sunday as a way to track my progression. I went from 495 for my first one to a 510, which I was happy with. I wasn't really that active on here at that time, so I didn't know their difficulty compared to the real one. Once I was writing the real one I felt like I was well prepared for it. It really helped calm my nerves on test day once I got through the first few questions and saw they were easier than what I was use to.

 

[rilte4]

Just one person's opinion, but I wouldn't use prep books designed for the old MCAT in studying for the new MCAT.

 

[Doug Underhill]

I took the old MCAT, but the most helpful strategy for me was to focus on questions, particularly those from previous AAMC practice tests. Taking the practice tests on the same day of the week at the same time under the same conditions in the weeks following up to the exam was very helpful.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Just one person's opinion, but I wouldn't use prep books designed for the old MCAT in studying for the new MCAT.

Cosnidering the fact the AAMC for their new material has recycled some of their old passages, I wouldn't agree with this. Hell even their scored FL they released last month recycled a couple passages from old AAMC tests.

There are still plenty of established resources for the old MCAT that are very good now. I think the biggest thing for MCAT prep is stick with reliable companies, not books that say theyre catered to the "new" MCAT or the "old" MCAT. In fact, alot of these companies priding themselves on these "new" books dont produce very good books that prepare you for what the real MCAT is like and I would be weary of them; its almost a marketing ploy to some extent.

 

[fawkes94]

I used next steps practice exams and thought they were a little harder than the real MCAT. I took them timed and for the actual MCAT I always had 10 to 15 minutes extra at the end of the section because the next step fl prepared me so well.

 

[Gibbward]

Maybe the 2016 prep books would be different but the mcat 2015 TPR book I got for CARS was exactly the same (word for word the same) as a 2012 TPR verbal book I had. I'm assuming the other books were the same as well, except additional content for biochem. If you can afford new material and if you think that'll give you confidence that you're learning the most up to date material, go for it. However, if you are poor like how I was, you can buy used old prep books and still perform well.

As for the practice tests, I think it TPR was great. They were very hard, but it gave me that extra push to study more and hit my target score. NS I thought was good and was pretty close (though easier) in terms of style and tone with the real thing.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

Yet even despite that, there are some DO schools with medians of 499. It's roughly a 25, so while not great, i wouldn't go far to exaggerate that it's very low.

But yes, OP needs to score well above 510 if he's aiming for MD schools

Seriously? Wow.....
Sorry I'm in Canada, half the schools here have an hard 11VR cutoff or at least a 10/10/10 screen I'm used to those standards