Help in increasing PS score

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Jbarrie

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Points
4,531
  1. Pre-Medical
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I know a lot of people say that increasing the verbal is hardest. I found that was the easiest for me to increase. On the downside I am having trouble on increasing my PS score which is low. I would like to know if anyone has used the EK 1001 chem and phy series and saw there score increase.
 
You have to first determine why you're struggling. It seems with the PS, there are two main reasons people don't do as well as they'd like: 1) a lack of deep understanding of the concepts tested, especially in the physics section that leads to under- or over-thinking questions or not being able to approach a problem at all or 2) a lack of speed in getting through the calculations, which leads to rushed test-taking and avoidable mistakes. Your issue with the PS may be one or both of these.

If it's the former, I've found that going through each concept and equation and reasoning out how exactly those equations were derived can help with learning how to integrate the given information into actually using those equations. For example, instead of just memorizing the lens equation, try to understand why those signs are the way they are and what the implications of longer focal length/image distance are. Or with kinetics, instead of memorizing several equations, just understand why d = 1/2*a*t^2 + v0*t + d0 and use that to derive any kinetic equation you need. I think this is the difference between those who approach physics or chemistry "intuitively" and those who just try to memorize the best equation to use for any given situation and end up being overwhelmed.

If it's the latter, you're just going to get faster with math, which is no easy feat. I don't think there's really a permanent solution to this other than long-term, persistent practice with doing calculations. With the limited time most people have to prepare for the MCAT, however, many people take the estimating route (where you eliminate answers based on obvious sign or magnitude issues and/or ballpark or round sums/multiplications/etc). I never felt secure using that, but that's not to say it would work for you. If timing is a huge issue, this might be the way to go since you're only going to be more nervous on the actual test. I never had less than 15-20 minutes to spare after double-checking answers in any of my practice tests but only had 5 minutes to go over my answers on test day. I'm usually not a nervous test-taker, but my head was spinning for the first half of the PS section and it took me a while to get into my test taking mode. I also had several friends who have taken the MCAT commented that they weren't able to finish the PS section on time, despite on-time performances on practice tests, so this seems to be a common enough occurrence.

If it's a combination of the two, focus on the first issue first and then tackle the timing issue. Having a solid grasp of the concepts will help you navigate more complicated calculations and determine which can be simplified. Obviously, these aren't the only two issues that come up with the PS and there are several ways of approaching the section, but this is just what I've gathered from preparing for the test myself and helping others prepare as well. However you choose to tackle the MCAT, however, it's always going to be some variation of: 1) identify fundamental problem 2) address problem 3) practice 4) practice 5) practice and 6) repeat 1-5.

Good luck with your studying!
 
Thank you so much for your advice!. I will definitely take the approach you advised me. I think my problem stems from not having a very solid grip on the physics concepts presented coupled with not practicing . Do you think that the EK 1001 phy can help nail down some of the concepts I am shaky on?
 
Thank you so much for your advice!. I will definitely take the approach you advised me. I think my problem stems from not having a very solid grip on the physics concepts presented coupled with not practicing . Do you think that the EK 1001 phy can help nail down some of the concepts I am shaky on?

Hmm I didn't really like EK physics/gen chem. I liked Princeton Review a lot more. I felt like PR provided a much more conceptual explanation of the concepts. Also, try to see if you can get the Hyperlearning workbook. There's a good number of straightforward discreet practice problems and also conceptual/reasoning based passage problems which I thought were a lot more useful than EK style questions. I didn't us EK 1001 phys, but at least for 1001 bio, the questions were way too detail focused.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your advice!. I will definitely take the approach you advised me. I think my problem stems from not having a very solid grip on the physics concepts presented coupled with not practicing . Do you think that the EK 1001 phy can help nail down some of the concepts I am shaky on?

Have you tried the berkley review books? I've seen many people getting 12+ on PS with BR.
 
Thank you so much for your advice!. I will definitely take the approach you advised me. I think my problem stems from not having a very solid grip on the physics concepts presented coupled with not practicing . Do you think that the EK 1001 phy can help nail down some of the concepts I am shaky on?

As others have mentioned, TPR or TBR may be a better option if you want to really get to the core concepts. EK1001 has a lot of questions, but they're pretty straightforward and require little critical thinking, meaning they'll won't be very useful for passage-based questions. EK1001 may be better suited for drilling questions and non-hard core studying (a "cool down" set of questions at the end of a study session, perhaps?). If you think you're shaky on the concepts, TPR may be a good book to use at first since it's a little more accessible. I mainly used the TPR, and supplemented my weaker topics with TBR, which I found sometimes made even simple concepts overly convoluted but did a nicer job with directly addressing some more complicated concepts.

I think what @snowflakes meant by the TPRH (The Princeton Review Hyperlearning) workbook is the Science Workbook, which is indeed a great resource if you can get your hands on it. It has more questions and passages than you'll probably know what to do with. It's only available to those who have taken a TPR course, so you'll have to check out the sales section of SDN or go to eBay.
 
I know a lot of people say that increasing the verbal is hardest. I found that was the easiest for me to increase. On the downside I am having trouble on increasing my PS score which is low. I would like to know if anyone has used the EK 1001 chem and phy series and saw there score increase.
Increasing PS should honestly be the easiest. The key to getting at least an average score is to just memorize all the pertinent equations that could show up. Second you really need to understand the relationships between different variables in these equations. Third, stop thinking about the natural world as a bunch of equations, and start "feeling" it. I'm assuming you've been at least memorizing the equations... hopefully. You really need to be able to feel the natural world instinctually, which will allow you to be able to quickly draw correlations and relationships between variables.

Above all though, memorizing the equations and realizing when they are applicable is the key. You didn't mention your scores, so I'm not sure where your skill might be at the moment, but if it is in the single digits, I'd say you don't have a good "feel" for these equations and when they apply or just don't have them memorized comfortably enough. If you are in the double digits already, it's about honing in on your weaknesses. My PS scores were anywhere from 11-13 usually, and the difference for me usually getting a higher score or not was if there was circuitry or sound waves involved in my questions. Once I had all the equations memorized, it was impossible for me to get below 11. However, I was really good at chemistry too. I usually got all chemistry questions right. Physics was my weakness.

If you didn't have a good physics experience in college and didn't learn what you should have, then these review books won't do you much good. Either pick up your old textbooks or invest in some of the more thorough and verbose MCAT prep literatures out there, like Berkley.
 
As others have mentioned, TPR or TBR may be a better option if you want to really get to the core concepts. EK1001 has a lot of questions, but they're pretty straightforward and require little critical thinking, meaning they'll won't be very useful for passage-based questions. EK1001 may be better suited for drilling questions and non-hard core studying (a "cool down" set of questions at the end of a study session, perhaps?). If you think you're shaky on the concepts, TPR may be a good book to use at first since it's a little more accessible. I mainly used the TPR, and supplemented my weaker topics with TBR, which I found sometimes made even simple concepts overly convoluted but did a nicer job with directly addressing some more complicated concepts.

I think what @snowflakes meant by the TPRH (The Princeton Review Hyperlearning) workbook is the Science Workbook, which is indeed a great resource if you can get your hands on it. It has more questions and passages than you'll probably know what to do with. It's only available to those who have taken a TPR course, so you'll have to check out the sales section of SDN or go to eBay.


If you have a friend in a TPR course right now, TPR has a full PDF copy of the Hyperlearning Science Workbook available for download via their online content account. Also has a downloadable PDF copy of the ICC.
 
Top Bottom