how much anat and phys in your 1st year of bio?

[gdk]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was looking over the topics for the MCAT and compared them to the topics in my classes. The gen chem and org chem look similar to what we covered in the first year of these classes, and BIO I covered a lot of the cellular biology. So that's good... seems like the coursework is laying the foundation.
However, I'm signed up for BIO II this fall and I see a lot of plants, ecosystems, and evolution on the syllabus... and not a lot of anatomy and physiology (which of course there seems to be a lot of on the MCAT). So since we all go to so many different schools, I was curious - how much anatomy and physiology did you cover in your 1st year of biology, since this is the minimum the MCAT expects students to have?

 

[jkhamlin]

In my BIO II we did have a lot of plant systematics and A&P. We also had a lot of animal systematics and anatomy and systematics in general (you'll learn to HATE protists 🙂 , but the study of protists sheds light on the origins of eukaryots which sheds light on cell bio, histology, and embryology; wait 'till you learn the systematic significance of the blastopore ) all leading up to ecology. You should also learn to apply dichotomous classification systems.

This is ok, though, IMHO because it is all relevant to life science and the origins of all biological systems. You might not see the relevance now, but you should as the semester progresses. EG: I did not pay any attention to essential micronutrients for plants in my studies, and my instructor did not lecture on it. He did, however, ask for them on the test. I got most of them correct just by guessing based on essential micronutrients for animals. Where do animals get them? Ultimately they are mostly from plants.

In the university I go to, they have a separate college for undergraduate biomedical science studies, but these people are usually clueless when it comes to anything outside of human biology. BIO II actually helped me practically sleep through the first unit in biochem while the professor caught the biomed geeks up to real biology 😀 . They learn only one small finite point on the biological spectrum and not the interrelation of all life outside of incidental (mostly disease only) models of symbiotic relationships.

This all means that it should prepare us better despite its appearance of being irrelevant. This is also why BIO I & II and CHM I & II and ORG I & I are a MINIMUM of what we should study. Much of what I have seen in preparatory materials are covered in cell bio, biochem, A&P, etc. I'd bet that people who break 30 on the MCAT go well beyond the core prereqs before testing.

HTH

 

[meanderson]

Don't worry about it. You can get all the physiology you need from the review books. Anatomy is not tested on the mcat in a practical sense. (You'll never be asked where the cerebrum is relative to the hypothalamus)

 

[meanderson]

People who break 30 on the mcat generally:

1) are pretty smart
2) spent a considerable amount of their time working practice passages under timed conditions

I'm positive that those two factors best correlate with high mcat scores. They are much more important than taking cell biology, physiology, histology, embryology, etc.....

 

[jkhamlin]

Originally posted by meanderson
People who break 30 on the mcat generally:

1) are pretty smart

That's an extremely unqualified statement. Generally, people who take the MCAT are pretty smart. This is sort of an a priori cop out for failing.

2) spent a considerable amount of their time working practice passages under timed conditions

Yes, they probably do. That would be a very good way to prepare.

I'm positive that those two factors best correlate with high mcat scores. They are much more important than taking cell biology, physiology, histology, embryology, etc.....

That's a very unqualified statement as well. First of all, how do you think they get "very smart?" Are they born that way? NO... they take hard classes in subjects that the MCAT tests. Second, it can be accurately stated that you would be lucky to get a 1 on the MCAT if you didn't take any BIO, CHEM, etc. ever, no matter how many practice tests you take. Taking these science courses certainly increases your ability to score high on the MCAT.

I was looking over a sample BIO passage on the AAMC site the other day. After the passage, it asked some questions about the passage, and all of the questions draw on previous knowledge of BIO and Stats. One of them even draws on knowledge usually taught in BIO II.

 

[IndyZX]

First of all, how do you think they get "very smart?" Are they born that way? NO... they take hard classes in subjects that the MCAT tests.

some people are just smarter than other people. i hope i rocked your world.

 

[jkhamlin]

Originally posted by indyzx
some people are just smarter than other people. i hope i rocked your world.

That's an extremely unqualified statement, too. It is referred to formally as reductionist reasoning. It's like when someone asks why the sky is blue and you say "Well, God just made it that way." You didn't explain it at all, but you feel you're off the hook.

 

[meanderson]

>>That's a very unqualified statement as well. First of all, how do >>you think they get "very smart?" Are they born that way? NO... >>they take hard classes in subjects that the MCAT tests. >>Second, it can be accurately stated that you would be lucky to >>get a 1 on the MCAT if you didn't take any BIO, CHEM, etc.


I hope you are being saracastic here. It's almost impossible to get less than a 3 or so on any section unless you don't answer the questions. To get a 1, you would actually have to be "good" in the sense to know how to get every single question wrong.


>>ever, no matter how many practice tests you take. Taking >>these science courses certainly increases your ability to score >>high on the MCAT.

Perhaps somewhat. Given two students with the exact same intelligence and verbal skills who have spent exactly the same amount of time on passage based prep, I suppose the student who has taken more upper level bio/chem classes would be at a slight advantage. But I'm pretty sure this advantage would be small compared to the variance that each of these students experience with each practice test.

>>I was looking over a sample BIO passage on the AAMC site the >>other day. After the passage, it asked some questions about >>the passage, and all of the questions draw on previous >>knowledge of BIO and Stats. One of them even draws on >>knowledge usually taught in BIO II.

If by bio 2 you mean the second semester of 1st year biology(or some equivalent class), then of course some of the questions will depend on that information. Everyone knows that 1 year of undergraduate biology is covered on the mcat. I never questioned whether it is important to know that.

This discussion is about whether classes like cell biology, evolutionary biology, verterbrae physiology, microbiology, etc are essential or even important for the mcat. The answer is no.

Look at the advice given by every single prep company towards mcat preparation. If you understand the concepts well in general biology, introductory physics, organic(very few rxns), and general chemistry, then you have enough science knowledge to take the test. That doesn't mean you are anywhere near prepared to actually take the mcat though......

 

[indo]

You couldn't get 1 on any section without knowing which answers were wrong. So if you could get a one you could have just as easily gotten a 15 because if you know all the wrong answers then that leaves the right answer.

 

[Corey]

JDK, i was just wondering if you feel that your questions got answered? Seems as if some people who responded are having a little piss contest instead of trying to give you a definite answer if they have one. Anyway, i'm in my jr. year (undergrad) and i've been comparing what i've been learning with the required mat. for the mcat. so far so good but i doubt that anat/phys is so important on the test that you have to spend separate time studying for it rather than the norms. My definite advice would be to find others in your class who are more aware of the requirements or who have already taken the test. My tutors usually have great advice in this case since they are usually pre-meds who are preparing to enter med school the following year.
Or, even ask your pre-med advisor(s).

Anyway, i hope you get an answer.

corey.

 

[Corey]

i apologize for the mistake on your sn in my last post GDK.

later.

corey.

 

[gdk]

i think i got the jist of an answer. that was a good point about anatomy not really being on the test as much as phys. makes sense i guess. i got an updated syllabus for my BIO class this Fall and i do see some chapters covering phys. i also bought an anat&phys text from another school that i can study on. this other text is very good but extremely detailed. it seems like it's made for pre-meds with diagnostic asides and "medical terminology" at the end of each chapter.
i was mostly just curious about curriculums between schools. i've taken science & engineering classes at 3 different colleges between undergrad, grad school, and post bacc. it's interesting to see the things they highlight, skip, present in a different way, etc. i guess 1st year bio is pretty much the same subject matter anywhere you go.
good luck to you guys taking the aug test.

 

[IndyZX]

Originally posted by jkhamlin
That's an extremely unqualified statement, too. It is referred to formally as reductionist reasoning. It's like when someone asks why the sky is blue and you say "Well, God just made it that way." You didn't explain it at all, but you feel you're off the hook.

I don't understand. I'm not into IQ tests and that sort of thing, either, but people's intelligences differ. I'm not sure what this is "formally" called, but I know a guy who's a total genius and then I know someone who isn't. It's not too difficult to discern this based on their academic performance and my personal interactions with them.

 

[jkhamlin]

Originally posted by indyzx
I don't understand. I'm not into IQ tests and that sort of thing, either, but people's intelligences differ. I'm not sure what this is "formally" called, but I know a guy who's a total genius and then I know someone who isn't. It's not too difficult to discern this based on their academic performance and my personal interactions with them.

Yes, but how do you think they got that way? Were they born that way, or did they learn it?
I have been attributed with just about everything up to magical powers based on my performance in school, but I can assure you that I am no different than anyone else; I just learned effective learning techniques early.
Experts are debating the very same thing, but it is probably due to reinforcement of effective learning behavior and how much each individual received. Also, reinforcement is a sort of wild card that is different for everyone.