How much does the new MCAT stress the importance of names for the Behavior

[HopefulMDclass2020]

I have taken FLs from multiple companies, and some stress the names more so than others. I have been doing GS FL's recently and the amount of detail they stress in the name of the person who invited the theory is insane. Can anyone who has actually taken the new MCAT tell me how important the names are (not sure if I am allowed to ask this, if not I will remove this post). Obviously names such as Marx, and Piaget are importance, but what about the more abstract names?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

I had a few questions that mentioned someone's name and asked me to identify something based off his/her theory and relate it to the passage. So in a way, yes they do expect you to know some theorists by name. But the ones I encountered were not obscure at all. They were well covered in both TPR and Kaplan books. Hope that helps!

 

[a_borgia]

Whereas I had a slightly conflicting experience. I felt my review guides somewhat insufficient, and I used EK and Kaplan.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

I should clarify that I have a masters in clinical psych, which I'm sure is confounding my experience too! Go with her response, not mine 🙂

 

[a_borgia]

I should clarify that I have a masters in clinical psych, which I'm sure is confounding my experience too! Go with her response, not mine 🙂

Whoa, yeah. That changes things. I took one woefully inadequate Psych 100 class, an even more useless research methods in psych class, and a Soc 100 class. Don't be me.

 

[basophilic]

Whoa, yeah. That changes things. I took one woefully inadequate Psych 100 class, an even more useless research methods in psych class, and a Soc 100 class. Don't be me.

Would you say the terms asked were beyond the scope of a basic intro psych textbook?

 

[a_borgia]

Would you say the terms asked were beyond the scope of a basic intro psych textbook?

I don't want to garner the wrath of the MCAT gods by revealing something I shouldn't, but it's hard to say as my intro psych class didn't use a textbook. My review book was much more in depth than my classes were, and they were too specific on some things but not specific on other areas. I think the mistake I made was not taking it quite as seriously as Bio, for which I knew everything down to Pkas for amino acids and stuff. If you study to the same depth as you do for B/B on P/S, you'll be fine. But maybe pick up a developmental psych textbook to skim.

 

[carpediem22]

I have taken FLs from multiple companies, and some stress the names more so than others. I have been doing GS FL's recently and the amount of detail they stress in the name of the person who invited the theory is insane. Can anyone who has actually taken the new MCAT tell me how important the names are (not sure if I am allowed to ask this, if not I will remove this post). Obviously names such as Marx, and Piaget are importance, but what about the more abstract names?

If you have the capacity to memorize names and not let other important material seep from your brain, do it. It can only help. I think mine only had major names on it but to be honest I blacked most of that day out 😛. I think some said that they got random names.

 

[a_borgia]

If you have the capacity to memorize names and not let other important material seep from your brain, do it. It can only help. I think mine only had major names on it but to be honest I blacked most of that day out 😛. I think some said that they got random names.

I did get some pretty random names. Looking back, I think they had one sentence in the review books, but pretty random nonetheless. Think about biology. Would you know who Miller or Urey or Messelsohn or Stahl or Hershey or Chase were? They aren't Charles Darwin, but they are important biologists you'd probably not read about in a review book but WOULD read about if took a couple of 200 level bio classes. I'd say the same of Pscyh. Of course Freud and Jung are important, but who do you think is the Hooke or Rosalind Franklin of the psychology field? Not just the "celebrity" psychologists with the fun theories, but also the hard hitters on the B-list.

 

[DesitnationMD]

Here's how I felt during most of my practice exams (EK, NS, Kaplan) psych/soc sections. My actual exam was much more concept related, though I would say it was still more recall heavy than the other science sections. I maybe saw 2 or 3 names I didn't recognize at all, but I could usually eliminate wrong answers I did recognize. To me the constant drilling of names/theories can't hurt, esp with the softer sciences that are hard to remember (for me anyway). None of the companies can know how much is too much for psych/soc without more AAMC data, and it just does not exist yet. I would recommend taking exams from 2-3 different companies if you can on top of the AAMC stuff.