How reflective are the earlier AAMCs?

[WesternRedCedar]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

So I posted earlier that I got 28 on AAMC 3. A lot of my "marked" questions, where i was making educated guesses had high % of ending up correct.

I did AAMC 4R (the longer exam, 77q in the sciences and 60q in verbal)

and my breakdown(timed exam) was:

PS: 63/77 ~10/11
VR: 45/65 ~9
BS : 45/77~ 7

Approx total: 26/27

How realistic are these scores actually? Am I going to be terribly surprised when I do AAMC 9-11?

My bio score is low, especially because of the number of organic chem passages and my doing poorly on them. (1/5, 2/5 etc).

I really need to improve Bio 🙁

My goal is a even 30.

 

[WesternRedCedar]

Anyone?

 

[Gauss44]

Response to question in title: The earlier AAMC practice tests more like the actual MCAT than non-AAMC tests, and not as good as the newer AAMC practice tests.

 

[23premes]

I got a 27 on aamc 3 9/9/9 and then a 12/10/11 on aamc 11. Verbal was about the same. Bio was less content based and PS was a little harder IMO but really not too different. 11 had little Ochem btw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brood910]

All of them are equally difficult + good for practice.
Many ppl say AAMC 11 is more difficult only because of new types of questions they see (calculation heavy).

 

[WesternRedCedar]

Thank you for the responses friends! At this point I will be fine with a 9/9/9, just want my freedom. In retrospect, I should have started preparing earlier, but time is not always my own to do with as I please!

 

[WesternRedCedar]

Just kidding, I want a 10/10/10 🙁

but will not retake if i get a 27+ with no sections lower than 8.

 

[23premes]

All of them are equally difficult + good for practice.
Many ppl say AAMC 11 is more difficult only because of new types of questions they see (calculation heavy).

I felt like bio changed too...but in any event. Ya, they are all good practice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk