how much does content review play in your score on MCAT?

[YoungProdigy]

May be a stupid question, but how much of the current MCAT is knowing your crap, and how much is actually applying it in new ways?

if a student knew almost all of the material in most of the prep books on each subject, are they pretty much set?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LuluLovesMe]

The way I see it, everyone has a potential maximum MCAT score though most don't reach it. While the potential is set, your actual score depends on content review and familiarity with the test.

Someone with a max potential of a 30 may only achieve a 26 with months of study while someone with a max potential of 42 may achieve a 30 with minimal knowledge of the material and no studying. Having no knowledge at all is going to get you a score under 24 for sure.

 

[Lawpy]

May be a stupid question, but how much of the current MCAT is knowing your crap, and how much is actually applying it in new ways?

if a student knew almost all of the material in most of the prep books on each subject, are they pretty much set?

I'll argue that someone who has very strong reasoning and analytical skills but little content background can score very high on the MCAT (somewhere around a 35-36 or 517+). The MCAT is basically a reasoning test and passage analysis, but having a good content review would be a significant help in improving accuracy and efficiency.

This is why it is very highly recommended to spend little time on content review and lots of time on practice.

The way I see it, everyone has a potential maximum MCAT score though most don't reach it. While the potential is set, your actual score depends on content review and familiarity with the test.

Someone with a max potential of a 30 may only achieve a 26 with months of study while someone with a max potential of 42 may achieve a 30 with minimal knowledge of the material and no studying. Having no knowledge at all is going to get you a score under 24 for sure.

Provided they have very strong reasoning and analytic skills, they can nab a 13+ on the verbal and net a lot of points on the physical and biology passages that are based on experiments. That is well above a 24.

 

[GrapesofRath]

May be a stupid question, but how much of the current MCAT is knowing your crap, and how much is actually applying it in new ways?

if a student knew almost all of the material in most of the prep books on each subject, are they pretty much set?

No

I agree with the above. Everybody has an intrinsic maximum score they are capable of hitting, that's just the nature of the MCAT. There's a limit to everybody's reading comprehension abilities and potential. For many many people who do well in their classes or have a GPA that's at least high enough to warrant medical school consideration. I personally think a fair majority of pre-meds are capable of at least hitting the national average, even relatively mediocre ones(ie not 2.8 students). Not everyone can hit that 28 type range although many many can. I personally think a large number of pre-meds who had a fair amount of success in college with the right prep are capable of hitting 30 also. After that, things get a lot dicier and harder to predict. But when I see a score like a 32, I don't think "oh that person could have hit 36+ if they really wanted to". I'll add this is all personal opinion based off experience, talking to many others, looking at the MCAT and its breakdown and bell curve etc. Hardly factual.

What you'll find many many people say in hindsight preparing was they spent too much time focusing on content and not enough time on practice passages.

I'll also add from what I've seen those with the highest scores often times tend to be those who study the least. The ones I know who went all out are most often the ones a) who had to bust their behind just to get a 28 b) in the middle of the MD matriculant range around a 32(there more of these than part a).

 

[LuluLovesMe]

I'll argue that someone who has very strong reasoning and analytical skills but little content background can score very high on the MCAT (somewhere around a 35-36 or 517+). The MCAT is basically a reasoning test and passage analysis, but having a good content review would be a significant help in improving accuracy and efficiency.

This is why it is very highly recommended to spend little time on content review and lots of time on practice.



Provided they have very strong reasoning and analytic skills, they can nab a 13+ on the verbal and net a lot of points on the physical and biology passages that are based on experiments. That is well above a 24.

By no knowledge, that's assuming they don't even know what a cell is or what the heart does. Not a really realistic possibility - just hypothetical. Or do you think someone with literally no scientific knowledge can get over 24?

 

[Lawpy]

By no knowledge, that's assuming they don't even know what a cell is what the heart does. Not a really realistic possibility - just hypothetical. Or do you think someone with literally no scientific knowledge can get over 24?

It's just passage analysis and reasoning. They will likely fail the free-standing questions unless they got lucky or somehow reasoned their way through. But they should net up a lot of points in passage analysis with pure reasoning and analytical skills. Maybe like an 8 at worst and 12+ at best in the sciences. Verbal should be a shoo-in

 

[whatever5]

n=1

Attempt #1 - Spent 80-90% of time reviewing content and understanding concepts, 10-20% doing practice tests and questions. Result = <30

Attempt #2 - 35% of time doing content review, focusing mainly on stuff I didn't know, and 65% of time with practice tests and questions. Result = >32

EDIT - My most significant improvement was VR. Take that to mean whatever you like.

 

[Lawpy]

n=1

Attempt #1 - Spent 80-90% of time reviewing content and understanding concepts, 10-20% doing practice tests and questions. Result = <30

Attempt #2 - 35% of time doing content review, focusing mainly on stuff I didn't know, and 65% of time with practice tests and questions. Result = >32

Yup. This example further substantiates the advice that practice is incredibly important to do well on the MCAT

 

[doctorleospaceman]

n=1

Did mostly content review. Took only 3 kaplan practice tests. Didnt even take the official fl. Got a 519. I'd say studying can get you to a 510-515. Rest is luck.

I'll argue that someone who has very strong reasoning and analytical skills but little content background can score very high on the MCAT (somewhere around a 35-36 or 517+). The MCAT is basically a reasoning test and passage analysis, but having a good content review would be a significant help in improving accuracy and efficiency.

With the exception of verbal/CARS, I disagree. Practice without knowledge as a foundation won't get you anywhere. Practice is important to get used to the question style and just the fatigue from a 6+ hour exam. I will never understand people who take like 8+ practice FLs. It's not like you will get the same passage or question on the actual, so what's the point after you're habituated to the MCAT?

 

[piii]

Everyone's needs are a bit different but in general practice should be the primary focus after a thorough foundation of content. Something like 1 month of review to 2 months of practice. During the two months of practice I broke my days up into an hour of high yield review and the rest of the 2-6 hours for practice. Remember that practice includes reviewing the answers which provide a great review of content as well.

 

[GrapesofRath]

The thing I'll add is that content review isn't really about truly "knowing" content. It's about being very familiar with content and having a grasp of fundamental principles.

Why does this matter?
a) Because time is money on the MCAT. The more familiar you are with material the faster you can digest it. And the faster you can answer questions.
b)But even more so than that familiarity with material and understanding of basic concepts allows you to digest a passage better and start picking up on details, being able to analyze graphs and data with a finer idea of detail and what does and doesn't actually matter(another important skill for the MCAT).
c) By picking up on these type of details and extracting the most relevant info, you've done alot to help yourself in facing the MCAT type questions full of tricks, both in terms of picking up and understanding subtelties and being able to identify answers that are either irrelevant, twist info or don't actually answer the question.

My personal experience as a neuro major any neuro based passage I saw in MCAT prep was a complete joke. Likewise, molecular bio passages for me for a while were just a different language and took forever to see real improvement and it really only came once I was able to understand molec bio concepts and be familiar with the material.

Think of it this way; if somebody could tell you before hand what specific topics you would be reading about for the CARs info(and I mean give specific details not a general oh you'll be reading about Shakespeare or economics) do you think it would help you on the real deal if you spent time going through and reading passages related to those specific topics to give you background info and make yourself more comfortable with that material? To me, the answer is clearly yes. That's to me where really the value of content review comes into play. There are alot of really smart people who don't need this "buffer" of knowing about a material to answer MCAT questions about it. But for many others, that "buffer" is a life saver and key to doing well. This is really why MCAT studying is all about practicing; practicing how to use that "buffer" of content knowledge and principles once you have it and learn to "extrapolate" "digest data" "make conclusions" and know what is and isn't relevant and how to avoid trap answer choices. Content knowledge alone won't do this for you.

 

[mehc012]

Honestly, I think there is a plateau to how much studying helps your score. You need a certain level of base knowledge to do reasonably well, then once you have that there is a large range where test-taking and critical thinking skills are the driving factors in score differences (these are harder to practice and thus why many people have difficulty raising their scores regardless of study time), and then finally, once you've nailed those bits, cramming in the final bits of minutiae can add the cherry-on-top last few points.

You need the foundation knowledge base first, and then if you are in the upper range of the critical thinking/test skills ability, you may see some returns from additional studying.

This works out if you see it a mix of 3-4 question types:
- Basic content Qs
- Critical thinking Qs (VR, anyone?)
- Critical thinking Qs which also require some piece of basic content to answer (majority)
- Critical thinking Qs which require advanced content mastery to answer

If you're weak on basic content, you do poorly in all of these categories. These are your catastrophically low scorers.
Once you master basic content, you will get most/all of the first group right. However, the number of Group B questions you get right will depend on your test-taking ability
If you truly master the content and have top-end test-taking skills (TTS), you will score well on the third type of question.

Obviously various levels of content mastery and TTS give you all of the nice gradients in between, but with these types of questions, they can design the test to both demonstrate preparation and critical thinking.


The only thing I didn't address above is timing, and that's because I have no experience with it...I always finished my sections at least 10-15min early. However, if timing is a factor in your exam, then additional review which familiarizes you with the various approaches, strategies, and tools that can be used to tackle the concepts can shave valuable minutes off your time as compared to having to work out a strategy on the fly.

 

[takeurmeds02]

Someone may know the concepts back and forth but if they can't apply it, it matters not. If you don't know the concepts at all then you can't apply them anyway so even still, it matters not.

Know the concepts, assess yourself for application. That's all you can do.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Content is important, as much of physics, bio, and the new sociology section depends on your ability to recall and apply terminology. (Example: you are expected to know what a watt is, and how to find the wattage of a system from other variables.)

But more important than reviewing terms and equations for hours at a time is knowing how to APPLY THEM--which can only reasonably be done through tons and tons of practice problems.

 

[Mr. Beefy Lion]

I'll argue that someone who has very strong reasoning and analytical skills but little content background can score very high on the MCAT (somewhere around a 35-36 or 517+). The MCAT is basically a reasoning test and passage analysis, but having a good content review would be a significant help in improving accuracy and efficiency.

This is why it is very highly recommended to spend little time on content review and lots of time on practice.



Provided they have very strong reasoning and analytic skills, they can nab a 13+ on the verbal and net a lot of points on the physical and biology passages that are based on experiments. That is well above a 24.

Completely agree. I never finished content review and scored a 519

 

[soadhead]

The biggest reason that I think practice problems are more important than content review is because practice problems do help you with understanding the content, and they help identify where you might not understand the content as much as you thought you did. Much of the content that you really really need to know for the MCAT is pretty basic, and you can answer a lot of the questions without much knowledge beyond the basics because the passages a lot of times give you the additional information that you might need.

 

[mehc012]

Completely agree. I never finished content review and scored a 519

'Never finished' is very different from 'never started' though. It could get you over the hump into the 'critical reasoning dependent' portion of the scoring scale, but perhaps not break you into the very top.
My score with 25% of content completely unreviewed was 4pts below my other practice exam average (so 2pts below the real deal), with a few discrete questions missed, which never happened once I finished all the material.

 

[mehc012]

The biggest reason that I think practice problems are more important than content review is because practice problems do help you with understanding the content, and they help identify where you might not understand the content as much as you thought you did. Much of the content that you really really need to know for the MCAT is pretty basic, and you can answer a lot of the questions without much knowledge beyond the basics because the passages a lot of times give you the additional information that you might need.

Yes, good content review includes practice problems; nobody has denied that. However, you probably don't need the 85 bajillion tons of practice tests that everyone pushes on here. I took less than SDN-recommended, and, other than the increase between 'not finished with content review' and 'finished with content review', my score was stable across them. I probably would have done just as well had I skipped them and just done the TBR passages in my review. Some content, I never did get around to doing any passages on, since my content review got compressed by an unexpected family visit. Didn't seem to hurt me.

 

[Mr. Beefy Lion]

'Never finished' is very different from 'never started' though. It could get you over the hump into the 'critical reasoning dependent' portion of the scoring scale, but perhaps not break you into the very top.
My score with 25% of content completely unreviewed was 4pts below my other practice exam average (so 2pts below the real deal), with a few discrete questions missed, which never happened once I finished all the material.

I'm not saying content review isn't important, just that it is possible to do well without a ton of it.

 

[bearintraining]

n=1

Did mostly content review. Took only 3 kaplan practice tests. Didnt even take the official fl. Got a 519. I'd say studying can get you to a 510-515. Rest is luck.



With the exception of verbal/CARS, I disagree. Practice without knowledge as a foundation won't get you anywhere. Practice is important to get used to the question style and just the fatigue from a 6+ hour exam. I will never understand people who take like 8+ practice FLs. It's not like you will get the same passage or question on the actual, so what's the point after you're habituated to the MCAT?

n=1 i did essentially no questions (some AAMC ones in their book), scanned the FL practice exam (did not actually answer it) and only did content review (x2) and scored 522

 

[soadhead]

Yes, good content review includes practice problems; nobody has denied that. However, you probably don't need the 85 bajillion tons of practice tests that everyone pushes on here. I took less than SDN-recommended, and, other than the increase between 'not finished with content review' and 'finished with content review', my score was stable across them. I probably would have done just as well had I skipped them and just done the TBR passages in my review. Some content, I never did get around to doing any passages on, since my content review got compressed by an unexpected family visit. Didn't seem to hurt me.

My definition of content review does not include doing problems. When I talk about practice problems, I'm not talking about problems designed specifically for the MCAT. I don't know what to think when somebody is talking about content review because when I hear "content review" I think of passive studying, taking notes in a class, thinking about concepts, etc. Anytime you are applying concepts to solve a problem, that is no longer content review to me, no matter where those problems come from.

 

[GrapesofRath]

n=1 i did essentially no questions (some AAMC ones in their book), scanned the FL practice exam (did not actually answer it) and only did content review (x2) and scored 522

The people who have the very highest scores are the ones I think in a number of cases study the least for the exam.

 

[mehc012]

My definition of content review does not include doing problems. When I talk about practice problems, I'm not talking about problems designed specifically for the MCAT. I don't know what to think when somebody is talking about content review because when I hear "content review" I think of passive studying, taking notes in a class, thinking about concepts, etc. Anytime you are applying concepts to solve a problem, that is no longer content review to me, no matter where those problems come from.

Most review book companies would disagree with you, but I see where you're coming from.

That being said, it depends on where you're starting. Personally, I had zero difficulty transitioning into passage based questions. For some people, it's the main game. But my background is as someone who has always been exceptionally good at standardized testing/critical thinking exams, but had taken most prereqs 5+yrs prior when I was a crummy student. So for me, content review was key because the test-taking component was never a concern.

I think in sum I would say: you need a certain level of both, but the content review threshold is probably lower than most people expect it to be coming in. What you should focus on depends on your own strengths, and if you are severely deficient in one, you can make it up partially focusing on the other (for example, someone who is a very slow critical thinker/test taker can study multiple approaches to each concept, greatly speeding the process when the test tries to throw an atypical presentation at them).

 

[Spinach Dip]

My definition of content review does not include doing problems. When I talk about practice problems, I'm not talking about problems designed specifically for the MCAT. I don't know what to think when somebody is talking about content review because when I hear "content review" I think of passive studying, taking notes in a class, thinking about concepts, etc. Anytime you are applying concepts to solve a problem, that is no longer content review to me, no matter where those problems come from.

Most review book companies would disagree with you, but I see where you're coming from.

That being said, it depends on where you're starting. Personally, I had zero difficulty transitioning into passage based questions. For some people, it's the main game. But my background is as someone who has always been exceptionally good at standardized testing/critical thinking exams, but had taken most prereqs 5+yrs prior when I was a crummy student. So for me, content review was key because the test-taking component was never a concern.

I think in sum I would say: you need a certain level of both, but the content review threshold is probably lower than most people expect it to be coming in. What you should focus on depends on your own strengths, and if you are severely deficient in one, you can make it up partially focusing on the other (for example, someone who is a very slow critical thinker/test taker can study multiple approaches to each concept, greatly speeding the process when the test tries to throw an atypical presentation at them).

I think the general understanding of content review is something you do before taking any tests.

IMO, this is a very weak way to study. Pointed review of practice problems (particularly those you got wrong!) is far more valuable.

 

[mehc012]

I think the general understanding of content review is something you do before taking any tests.

IMO, this is a very weak way to study. Pointed review of practice problems (particularly those you got wrong!) is far more valuable.

The discussion here is whether practice problems in review books count as content review.

As I said, it depends on the person. I would probably have done similarly had I not done practice problems or tests, period. I have reasoning to back that up if you want.
I concur that reviewing practice problems is more valuable than simple content review as a general rule, but it's not necessary for everyone, and that depends on their weaknesses. I couldn't even do that once I got to AAMC exams; I only did so with my TBR practice passages, but it didn't seem to improve my performance over time. My scores on any subject were fairly stagnant unless I did additional content review of some sort, including active things such as making flashcards, deriving equations, etc.

 

[Lawpy]

Do we at least agree that reasoning skills and content background obtained before even preparing for the MCAT are vastly different for everyone? It's from here that MCAT prep essentually becomes personalized, so some may need more content review, some may need a lot of practice, and others may need both (and few may need none and can ace the MCAT in a week's worth of prep)

 

[mordac21]

Adding another n=1 to the pile,

The vast vast majority of my time was spent taking practice tests/doing practice problems. Many of my friends were walking around with literal binders full of mcat notes, but I don't think I even filled up 30 pages of my notebook. I would take practice tests and focus content review on the areas I was weakest in. And then I would take more practice tests. And more practice tests. And more practice tests.

In the end I did very well on the mcat (>36). Of course, your mileage may vary. I don't know much more content you have to have committed to memory on the new mcat.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Content review is necessary, but very far from sufficient.

 

[flapjack3d]

usually mcat studying starts with content review, then moves onto practice tests once that's over. ask people how much they improved from their first test post-content-review to the last. i went from 32 to >40. so basically, yeah, like @ChrisMack390 said, it's necessary, but not even half the battle.

edit: still n=1, but my scores kept going up till near the end of my 9 practice AAMCs, so i still stand by the SDN standard advice to take as many practice tests as possible.

 

[Lawpy]

Content review is necessary, but very far from sufficient.

I don't think there is anything sufficient to smash the MCAT. I could be wrong though.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I don't think there is anything sufficient to smash the MCAT. I could be wrong though.

So what, all good scores come just from luck?

I disagree. The MCAT is a system. Once you learn the system and refine your techniques, you can do it.

Sure maybe there is nothing sufficient to get a 526 and there is some luck there, but you can study sufficiently to earn a 515+

 

[BeachBaby]

I personally felt I spent way too much time on content review and ignored all the advice to just practice passages. A better balance between content/practicing passages (even if you have no idea what its saying) would have maybe improved my score, not sure.

 

[Lawpy]

So what, all good scores come just from luck?

I disagree. The MCAT is a system. Once you learn the system and refine your techniques, you can do it.

Sure maybe there is nothing sufficient to get a 526 and there is some luck there, but you can study sufficiently to earn a 515+

What about for those who peaked at scores well below 510? What would you suggest?

 

[mehc012]

usually mcat studying starts with content review, then moves onto practice tests once that's over. ask people how much they improved from their first test post-content-review to the last. i went from 32 to >40. so basically, yeah, like @ChrisMack390 said, it's necessary, but not even half the battle.

edit: still n=1, but my scores kept going up till near the end of my 9 practice AAMCs, so i still stand by the SDN standard advice to take as many practice tests as possible.

View attachment 197443

Again, this is person-dependent, though. My first post-content review test was a 42, and I stayed in the 40+ range through all of my practice exams, no upward trend or anything.
The only test I ever took that was below a 40 was the one where I had yet to cover 25% of the content review; that one was a 38, 4pts below the average of my other practice exams, and the difference came from a few missed discrete questions on the topics I hadn't seen yet.

While taking practice tests was good for my peace of mind, I probably would have done just as well on the real deal had I taken none.

 

[soadhead]

Again, this is person-dependent, though. My first post-content review test was a 42, and I stayed in the 40+ range through all of my practice exams, no upward trend or anything.
The only test I ever took that was below a 40 was the one where I had yet to cover 25% of the content review; that one was a 38, 4pts below the average of my other practice exams, and the difference came from a few missed discrete questions on the topics I hadn't seen yet.

While taking practice tests was good for my peace of mind, I probably would have done just as well on the real deal had I taken none.

I don't think your case is typical or a good example to go off of when determining if practice exams help. If you got 42 on your first one, then you didn't have much room for improvement. I mean, a 42 might mean you missed only 3 or 4 problems.

 

[mehc012]

I don't think your case is typical or a good example to go off of when determining if practice exams help. If you got 42 on your first one, then you didn't have much room for improvement. I mean, a 42 might mean you missed only 3 or 4 problems.

Right, and you ended up scoring around there as well, you just needed practice tests first.
My strength was always in my test-taking ability, so practice exams were not what I needed.
Many people's strength is in their content knowledge, but they need more practice tests.
Most people, realistically, need both.

I'm just trying to say that the individual's strengths and background really dictate what sort of prep is most valuable to them. If you've got zero content knowledge, but are generally good at tests, content review is crucial or you won't get barely anything right. If you're middling on both, practice questions/tests may give you more bang for your buck because they help you with both, if you review them properly. If you know the material and aren't scoring well, practice practice practice! Score well untimed but can't finish the sections? Content review to learn the multiple angles and shortcuts so you don't have to parse them out during the exam. And if you're good at testing, know the content well enough to score mid-high 30s, and want that extra boost, detailed content review that exposes you to multiple angles of attack and nails down every minute detail may be what takes you to those 40+ numbers.

 

[663697]

I'll argue that someone who has very strong reasoning and analytical skills but little content background can score very high on the MCAT (somewhere around a 35-36 or 517+). The MCAT is basically a reasoning test and passage analysis, but having a good content review would be a significant help in improving accuracy and efficiency.

This is why it is very highly recommended to spend little time on content review and lots of time on practice.



Provided they have very strong reasoning and analytic skills, they can nab a 13+ on the verbal and net a lot of points on the physical and biology passages that are based on experiments. That is well above a 24.

How would you suggest developing reasoning and analytical skills for someone who has a ton of time on their hands (more than a year until taking the MCAT)?

 

[ChrisMack390]

What about for those who peaked at scores well below 510? What would you suggest?

They either don't know enough content or didn't practice enough, or they are being affected by some extraneous factor like poor stress management.

 

[mehc012]

Man, this discussion is so much harder now that people are using 2 different scoring systems.

 

[GrapesofRath]

They either don't know enough content or didn't practice enough, or they are being affected by some extraneous factor like poor stress management.

It's one of those things it's easy for people who aced the MCAT to say anybody can do well if they study and practice properly. There's a reason 80% of people won't hit 510 and its not because all of them aren't stidying right or long enough

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Yes you could answer most of the passage questions without strong review but you would be slow at it if it was completely unfamiliar to you. Time is critical on the mcat, so you do not want to be wasting time trying to piece together things purely based on logic. Know your mcat topics cold, and do tons of practice. Personally, I started with questions and then went back to review my weak points which worked out great for me.

 

[ChrisMack390]

It's one of those things it's easy for people who aced the MCAT to say anybody can do well if they study and practice properly. There's a reason 80% of people won't hit 510 and its not because all of them aren't stidying right or long enough

Isn't it though?

I guess on a philosophical level I don't necessarily believe that some people are capable of learning something and others are not.

 

[soadhead]

Isn't it though?

I guess on a philosophical level I don't necessarily believe that some people are capable of learning something and others are not.

I believe that some people are not capable of learning somethings without a lot more work than other people. Working with classmates on assignments or exercises in class has showed me that the ability to understand content varies a great deal from person to person.

 

[ChrisMack390]

What constitutes "sufficient" is different for different people, sure.

I have a friend who greatly struggled with the MCAT. His early practices were in the mid teens. After 2 years of practicing and very slowly improving he pulled off a 33. It can be done.

 

[GrapesofRath]

What constitutes "sufficient" is different for different people, sure.

I have a friend who greatly struggled with the MCAT. His early practices were in the mid teens. After 2 years of practicing and very slowly improving he pulled off a 33. It can be done.

For some people yes. For others no. Everybody has a limit or intrinsic level of reading comprehension they are capable of. For many, this never gets realized because there's is just high enough that they never struggle and reach their maximum level. For others, the MCAT is precisely that tipping point. It's like people seem to forget 3X as many people end up with sub 500 scores than people with 510-511+ scores. That's not a matter of just "working hard enough or smart enough"; its lazy and shortsighted to think that. SDN gives you an extremely biased sample size where a 32 is looked down upon and completely ignores how there are 3-4X as many people who can't even get past 25 as those who hit 32.

 

[deleted407021]

Practice, practice, practice. Then, do it some more.

 

[asturner91]

I'll add another data point here. I took the MCAT three times. First two times I took it I studied with content review and a few practice tests and scored 28 then 29. Those were a year apart.

Took it a third time 2 years later and studied almost exclusively by doing tests and problems. I probably did upwards of 20 full lengths and an additional 50 section tests for each section. Got a 36.

 

[Lawpy]

I'll add another data point here. I took the MCAT three times. First two times I took it I studied with content review and a few practice tests and scored 28 then 29. Those were a year apart.

Took it a third time 2 years later and studied almost exclusively by doing tests and problems. I probably did upwards of 20 full lengths and an additional 50 section tests for each section. Got a 36.

For some people yes. For others no. Everybody has a limit or intrinsic level of reading comprehension they are capable of. For many, this never gets realized because there's is just high enough that they never struggle and reach their maximum level. For others, the MCAT is precisely that tipping point. It's like people seem to forget 3X as many people end up with sub 500 scores than people with 510-511+ scores. That's not a matter of just "working hard enough or smart enough"; its lazy and shortsighted to think that. SDN gives you an extremely biased sample size where a 32 is looked down upon and completely ignores how there are 3-4X as many people who can't even get past 25 as those who hit 32.

GrapesOfRath, how would you address the above situation?

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I think the study method is different for everyone though. I only did a couple practice tests (mostly bc there weren't a lot of good quality available for the new exam) and it was fine. Do your own thing and put effort into it. I don't agree with people having limits and even if that was true, there is no accurate way to identify what they are with so many confounding variables so my suggestion is don't give a **** and try your best

 

[GrapesofRath]

GrapesOfRath, how would you address the above situation?

That person clearly had the comprehension and analysis abilities to do well on the MCAT. But poor preparation can botch any MCAT performance. It's not that big score jumps don't happen; it's that many people who need a big score jump who did poorly the first time simply aren't capable of that kind of score jump.