How well could you do on the mcat if money was no object

[RustBeltOnc]

I just view it as a second chance for a lot of people, a way for those that went to less prestigious schools or had less fortunate backgrounds to prove they are just as competent as those that went to more elite schools in regard to the basic sciences. Without it, you'd pretty much doom anyone that went to the low-tier state universities or community colleges to never getting into medical school, which is far from the case today.

Madjack -- nearly every college in the US sends people to medical school, nearly every year. I agree with you that for people at the lower end of the status spectrum, eliminating the MCAT might limit their choices. But my point is, most people would benefit. I view the MCAT less in terms of the mobility of the individual, but the stress it produces for a population of people and as a "gateway" to an entire industry of testing that needs reform.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Affiche]

Ok I don't want to argue with you, but you claiming to "wing" a section and only focus on the high yield topics earlier did sound like an excuse (but please correct me if I am wrong). Look I'm sorry for all the **** you faced while studying for the mcat (and much more that I'm not aware of). We all face different levels and types of stress during our lives - I have too; life's not fair and it puts many of us at a disadvantage compared to privileged kids. But in the end of the day, it's up to us to make the best of it when studying for one of the most important exams of our life.

I wasn't making excuses at all. I did prioritize high-yield topics and scored ~90th percentile+ for those sections. It worked out just fine for me. I was never arguing that my own situation was severely limited by financial hardship because for the MCAT, it wasn't severely limited. It was slightly limited and I'm not sure how highly I could score/what my potential is for the MCAT, but I don't really care anymore either. I scored well enough. This has nothing to do with my own situation. I was making that comment because other applicants are severely limited by financial hardship and having to prioritize doesn't work out for them. People wanting to help patients all across the SES spectrum should understand the limitations of financial hardship.

The bolded makes my point: "making the best" still produces limitations for different applicants. You can't honestly believe that if those who are disadvantaged were motivated enough, then they'd be on an equal playing field with the non-disadvantaged.

 

[el_duderino]

Madjack -- nearly every college in the US sends people to medical school, nearly every year. I agree with you that for people at the lower end of the status spectrum, eliminating the MCAT might limit their choices. But my point is, most people would benefit. I view the MCAT less in terms of the mobility of the individual, but the stress it produces for a population of people and as a "gateway" to an entire industry of testing that needs reform.

In reality, eliminating the MCAT would probably disproportionately help the kids from big-name schools. In the absence of the MCAT, undergrad prestige would play a larger role.

 

[GrapesofRath]

In reality, eliminating the MCAT would probably disproportionately help the kids from big-name schools. In the absence of the MCAT, undergrad prestige would play a larger role.

+1. You are forcing yourself to rely more on factors that probably shouldn't be given the weight they are designed to be given if you eliminate the MCAT

 

[el_duderino]

+1. You are forcing yourself to rely more on factors that probably shouldn't be given the weight they are designed to be given if you eliminate the MCAT

Yup. The MCAT gives students from small schools, or schools with poor reputations, a way to distinguish themselves in an objective way.

 

[Mad Jack]

Madjack -- nearly every college in the US sends people to medical school, nearly every year. I agree with you that for people at the lower end of the status spectrum, eliminating the MCAT might limit their choices. But my point is, most people would benefit. I view the MCAT less in terms of the mobility of the individual, but the stress it produces for a population of people and as a "gateway" to an entire industry of testing that needs reform.

There's only an industry because people get all hypercompetitive about it. You don't need to spend thousands to do well on the MCAT or the USMLE. People do, but that is to their own detriment. They make their own hell, as it were.

My biggest argument though, is that the MCAT has been shown in multiple studies to be the best indicator we have of medical school performance and board score pass rates. It's more predictive than GPA. It's more predictive than undergraduate school attended. So why would we scrap the best test that we have? To not rustle some little snowflakes' jimmies? Oh, dearest me, think of the snowflakes!

 

[RustBeltOnc]

+1. You are forcing yourself to rely more on factors that probably shouldn't be given the weight they are designed to be given if you eliminate the MCAT

I agree with you guys in principal, but I am coming at this from decades at the rodeo. The Horatio Algers of medical school are few and far between. You are asking a whole bunch of people to take a test that won't help them one way or another.

Truth is nearly every LAC and State U undegrad has a decent work relationship with a solid medical school that could work wonders for its best students based on transcript alone.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I wasn't making excuses at all. I did prioritize high-yield topics and scored ~90th percentile+ for those sections. It worked out just fine for me. I was never arguing that my own situation was severely limited by financial hardship because for the MCAT, because it wasn't severely limited. It was slightly limited and I'm not sure how highly I could score/what my potential is for the MCAT, but I don't really care anymore either. I scored well enough. I was making that comment because other applicants are severely limited by financial hardship and having to prioritize doesn't work out for them. People wanting to help patients all across the SES spectrum should understand the limitations of financial hardship.

I misunderstood then, my bad. For the applicants who score poorly due to disadvantage, it's completely unfair I agree. I think it was @mimelim who said bad applicants are still bad applicants. Like you said, it sucks, but that's just how it is

 

[Affiche]

There is no equalizer. There is no way to objectively compare applicants fairly. The best we can do is keep the score as it's a measure of Step 1 performance and review applicants holistically.

The only part about the MCAT that bothers me is the lack of understanding from the privileged pre-meds (not saying that applies to anyone here) that fail to understand how external factors can be limiting for others, yet they want to work with patients across the SES spectrum lol.

 

[GrapesofRath]

There's only an industry because people get all hypercompetitive about it. You don't need to spend thousands to do well on the MCAT or the USMLE. People do, but that is to their own detriment. They make their own hell, as it were.

My biggest argument though, is that the MCAT has been shown in multiple studies to be the best indicator we have of medical school performance and board score pass rates. It's more predictive than GPA. It's more predictive than undergraduate school attended. So why would we scrap the best test that we have? To not rustle some little snowflakes' jimmies? Oh, dearest me, think of the snowflakes!

+1

The thing that people always forget in their ANTI-MCAT argument is that medical schools aren't interested in getting students who will merely just "pass". Given the support and help they give in medical school, the vast majority of mediocre students can pass(look up the stats even those with 2.7/25's usually get their MDs if they get into medical school). The thing is medical schools want people who will THRIVE in medical school. Who will thrive in Step 1 and go on to a top specialty. This is where the MCAT comes into play. Considering what matters in medical school for residencies: 1) Step 1 2) rotations. Note pre-clinical grades are not mentioned here and this is where you could argue there is correlation between undergrad performance. You need to be able to reason and have top thinking skills. When there is so much material to learn in medical school, you simply need these and undergrad performance really can't measure this past a certain point. Your ability to do well on standardized tests in general is also huge and what the MCAT can provide insight into. You need to have top reasoning/thinking skills to thrive on the step 1 and in medical school the way ADCOMs want. The MCAT is hardly perfect, but it does a solid job of providing valuable insight into these areas in ways transcripts can't.

And above all else, you absolutely 100% need a test to compare all applicants. You can't have medical school admission otherwise.

 

[el_duderino]

I agree with you guys in principal, but I am coming at this from decades at the rodeo. The Horatio Algers of medical school are few and far between. You are asking a whole bunch of people to take a test that won't help them one way or another.

Truth is nearly every LAC and State U undegrad has a decent work relationship with a solid medical school that could work wonders for its best students based on transcript alone.

Decades of what? Medical school admissions data analysis?

From what you're saying, you're decades removed from any experience with the medical school admissions process at all, and you have shown no data or particular experience with modern medical school admissions, nor have you produced any sort of counterpoint to the valid criticisms brought by myself and others

 

[RustBeltOnc]

+1
. Who will thrive in Step 1 and go on to a top specialty. This is where the MCAT comes into play. Considering what matters in medical school for residencies: 1) Step 1 2) rotations.

And above all else, you absolutely 100% need a test to compare all applicants. You can't have medical school admission otherwise.

So if I went to Hopkins in the 80s and didn't submit an MCAT and had a mediocre performance on Step I because it was not important for IM .... Hopkins wasn't doing its job?

 

[Mad Jack]

There is no equalizer. There is no way to objectively compare applicants fairly. The best we can do is keep the score as it's a measure of Step 1 performance and review applicants holistically.

The only part about the MCAT that bothers me is the lack of understanding from the privileged pre-meds (not saying that applies to anyone here) that fail to understand how external factors can be limiting for others, yet they want to work with patients across the SES spectrum lol.

If you can't afford the two hundred bucks in books to properly study, you probably won't be able to afford interviews, flights/driving extended distances for interviews, a suit to wear for interviews, etc etc. The financial barriers of succeeding on the MCAT are small compared to all of the other barriers inherent in the admission process. If you can't find the 40 hours a week to study now, how are you going to find the 60-80 hours a week to study during medical school? If you can't afford a few books, how are you going to afford relocating? I mean, this is an expensive process, and it sucks. But the same barriers that prevent someone from investing time and money into the MCAT are multiplied threefold when you're actually in medical school.

 

[el_duderino]

So if I went to Hopkins in the 80s and didn't submit an MCAT and had a mediocre performance on Step I because it was not important for IM .... Hopkins wasn't doing its job?

1985 was 30 years ago.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I wasn't making excuses at all. I did prioritize high-yield topics and scored ~90th percentile+ for those sections. It worked out just fine for me. I was never arguing that my own situation was severely limited by financial hardship because for the MCAT, it wasn't severely limited. It was slightly limited and I'm not sure how highly I could score/what my potential is for the MCAT, but I don't really care anymore either. I scored well enough. This has nothing to do with my own situation. I was making that comment because other applicants are severely limited by financial hardship and having to prioritize doesn't work out for them. People wanting to help patients all across the SES spectrum should understand the limitations of financial hardship.

The bolded makes my point: "making the best" still produces limitations for different applicants. You can't honestly believe that if those who are disadvantaged were motivated enough, then they'd be on an equal playing field with the non-disadvantaged.

I do believe it. Maybe it is a bias but members of my family have fought every odd and severe financial and circumstantial disadvantage to become who they are today. You can accuse me of being naive and maybe it is. All I know is that their willpower got them here today

 

[Mad Jack]

In all fairness, Step 1 scores are most predictive of first time specialty board pass rates. So it is a point programs worry about, because they don't want their students failing the specialty boards. So it is kind of fair for programs to use Step 1 as an objective measure of who will successfully become BC down the road, and to select students that are more likely to be successful.

 

[GrapesofRath]

So if I went to Hopkins in the 80s and didn't submit an MCAT and had a mediocre performance on Step I because it was not important for IM .... Hopkins wasn't doing its job?

Uhhhh things evolve. Our thought process evolves. We learn things. We realize what does and doesn't matter and what is the best indicator of success in medical school. Look at how different the MCAT was 30 years ago to how it was now. It doesn't compare. It tests completely different things. What does the fact that JHU requires the MCAT now days and places enormous weight in it tell you? There thought process has evolved in terms of assessing what makes the best physician. Like I said, the vast majority of mediocre students who get into medical school pass. So just saying, those guys passed and turned out ok does nothing for the argument at hand here. The point isn't to see what best correlates with a medical student being able to pass; it's all about what are characteristics that make medical students who do best in medical school. Our thought process evolves as we get more knowledge and insight into what matters for medical school success. There is alot of what went on 30 years ago that we wouldn't agree with it, and alot of it has changed.

 

[Mad Jack]

+1

The thing that people always forget in their ANTI-MCAT argument is that medical schools aren't interested in getting students who will merely just "pass". Given the support and help they give in medical school, the vast majority of mediocre students can pass(look up the stats even those with 2.7/25's usually get their MDs if they get into medical school). The thing is medical schools want people who will THRIVE in medical school. Who will thrive in Step 1 and go on to a top specialty. This is where the MCAT comes into play. Considering what matters in medical school for residencies: 1) Step 1 2) rotations. Note pre-clinical grades are not mentioned here and this is where you could argue there is correlation between undergrad performance. You need to be able to reason and have top thinking skills. When there is so much material to learn in medical school, you simply need these and undergrad performance really can't measure this past a certain point. Your ability to do well on standardized tests in general is also huge and what the MCAT can provide insight into. You need to have top reasoning/thinking skills to thrive on the step 1 and in medical school the way ADCOMs want. The MCAT is hardly perfect, but it does a solid job of providing valuable insight into these areas in ways transcripts can't.

And above all else, you absolutely 100% need a test to compare all applicants. You can't have medical school admission otherwise.

MCAT is twice as predictive of medical school grades as undergraduate GPA, to the point that you can basically predict someone's medical school GPA using MCAT alone.

 

[GrapesofRath]

MCAT is twice as predictive of medical school grades as undergraduate GPA, to the point that you can basically predict someone's medical school GPA using MCAT alone.

You could certainly make a case that when compared to GPA vs MCAT the MCAT might actually not get quite enough emphasis in medical school admission.

 

[Affiche]

If you can't afford the two hundred bucks in books to properly study, you probably won't be able to afford interviews, flights/driving extended distances for interviews, a suit to wear for interviews, etc etc. The financial barriers of succeeding on the MCAT are small compared to all of the other barriers inherent in the admission process. If you can't find the 40 hours a week to study now, how are you going to find the 60-80 hours a week to study during medical school? If you can't afford a few books, how are you going to afford relocating? I mean, this is an expensive process, and it sucks. But the same barriers that prevent someone from investing time and money into the MCAT are multiplied threefold when you're actually in medical school.

The two hundred bucks isn't the problem, the working 60 hours each week which limits the time available to use them is. You have loans in medical school instead of a 60 hr/week job. Not everyone interviews or relocates across the country (or even state). My only point here is that money does potentially limit the options of the disadvantaged, and pre-meds wanting to become doctors should have the insight to recognize that.

I do believe it. Maybe it is a bias but members of my family have fought every odd and severe financial and circumstantial disadvantage to become who they are today. You can accuse me of being naive and maybe it is. All I know is that their willpower got them here today, not them making excuses about how unfair life is.

I'd consider myself a pretty damn good example of pulling myself up by the bootstraps, but it would be incredibly naive to think I was able to do that out of willpower alone. Without support from other people and a lot of luck, I'd be ****ed. That's why I have so much empathy for others facing hardship...I know that willpower alone often isn't enough. Alas, this seems to be going in circles so I'm stepping out.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

The two hundred bucks isn't the problem, the working 60 hours each week which limits the time available to use them is. You have loans in medical school instead of a 60 hr/week job. Not everyone interviews or relocates across the country (or even state). My only point here is that money does potentially limit the options of the disadvantaged, and pre-meds wanting to become doctors should have the insight to recognize that.

I'd consider myself a pretty damn good example of pulling myself up by the bootstraps, but it would be incredibly naive to think I was able to do that out of willpower alone. Without support from other people and a lot of luck, I'd be ****ed. That's why I have so much empathy for others facing hardship...I know that willpower alone isn't often enough. Alas, this seems to be going in circles so I'm stepping out.

It's not going in circles... I've made my point which others seem to agree with here. We can agree to disagree

Also lol where did social support come from? Do you see me denying social support is needed during difficult times?

 

[GrapesofRath]

Other thing I'll add is that I think clearly the MCAT Bio and physical science sections correlate to time spent studying, preparation etc. The physical science honestly is testing you on your understanding of basic principles and tricks that can clearly be learned. But what a number of people's real problem with the MCAT is isn't the science sections; it's the verbal section. And that's the type of thing where there is a certain stubbornness for that score to improve, even with practice. That's the type of section where time and money spent studying has the least effect on score improvement.

 

[Mad Jack]

The two hundred bucks isn't the problem, the working 60 hours each week which limits the time available to use them is. You have loans in medical school instead of a 60 hr/week job. Not everyone interviews or relocates across the country (or even state). My only point here is that money does potentially limit the options of the disadvantaged, and pre-meds wanting to become doctors should have the insight to recognize that.

I'd consider myself a pretty damn good example of pulling myself up by the bootstraps, but it would be incredibly naive to think I was able to do that out of willpower alone. Without support from other people and a lot of luck, I'd be ****ed. That's why I have so much empathy for others facing hardship...I know that willpower alone often isn't enough. Alas, this seems to be going in circles so I'm stepping out.

You've got 168 hours in a week. You need to sleep for 56 of them. You need to eat with 10 of them. Commuting might eat up another 5. Now, if you're working 60 hours a week, that still leaves you with 37 hours a week to study. I was putting in 40-60 hours per week, with a two hour commute each day, making my own damn food, dealing with the obligations of adult life, and I still cut back on sleep so I could put in those 40 hours a week into studying every damn week. If you prioritize and are willing to sacrifice, you can find the time. But if you can't find the time, you probably won't be able to find the time once med school hits and you've got even more time being dumped into studying.

Anyway, the 60 hours a week, hard working premed is the rare, rare exception, not the rule. We don't build rules based on exceptions.

 

[GrapesofRath]

The thing I think medical school admission forces those from less well off backgrounds is to be really good at time management and efficiency before medical school. The more well off people will have to learn these techniques in medical school and can get by without them to some extent beforehand but to be a competitive medical school candidate you have to be really good at this before medical school. You have less margin for error. Yes, it's unfair but the problem inevitably those who are less well off face is there will always be truly brilliant types who can pull off top stats even working 40 hours a week while in school. It's not fair to hold all candidates from low income families to this standard, but alas medical schools can afford to be very picky. Certainly not fair, but when you make admission numbers driven as it is, that is the reality of the situation in many cases.

 

[GrapesofRath]

.

 

[mehc012]

Sorry typo ---was responding to jonnythan.

Ah, thus the disconnect...I do not see posts or quotes from that user.

 

[Affiche]

You've got 168 hours in a week. You need to sleep for 56 of them. You need to eat with 10 of them. Commuting might eat up another 5. Now, if you're working 60 hours a week, that still leaves you with 37 hours a week to study. I was putting in 40-60 hours per week, with a two hour commute each day, making my own damn food, dealing with the obligations of adult life, and I still cut back on sleep so I could put in those 40 hours a week into studying every damn week. If you prioritize and are willing to sacrifice, you can find the time. But if you can't find the time, you probably won't be able to find the time once med school hits and you've got even more time being dumped into studying.

Anyway, the 60 hours a week, hard working premed is the rare, rare exception, not the rule. We don't build rules based on exceptions.

You also studied for a test that contained about 60% of the material of the new test. Your test also didn't require as much endurance as the current test either, so adequate sleep may not have been as important for you. Your job may not have been as mentally taxing as someone else's, so it was more manageable to study after work hours. Who knows? You can't take your experience and apply it to everyone else's. It's a privileged thought to think "I did it, so everyone else can, too".

I managed to find enough time just fine. I'm not worried about me finding time to study in medical school and I wouldn't worry about someone else's based off MCAT studying while working full-time, either. People lead different lives as students. I'm more worried about the kids who have never had a job or had to support themselves but preach about wanting to serve the disadvantaged with no real insight to the effects of financial hardship. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mad Jack]

You also studied for a test that contained about 60% of the material of the new test. Your test also didn't require as much endurance as the current test either, so adequate sleep may not have been as important for you. Your job may not have been as mentally taxing as someone else's, so it was more manageable to study after work hours. Who knows? You can't take your experience and apply it to everyone else's. It's a privileged thought to think "I did it, so everyone else can, too".

I managed to find enough time just fine. I'm not worried about me finding time to study in medical school and I wouldn't worry about someone else's based off MCAT studying while working full-time, either. People lead different lives as students. I'm more worried about the kids who have never had a job or had to support themselves but preach about wanting to serve the disadvantaged with no real insight to the effects of financial hardship. We'll have to agree to disagree.

A less taxing job than dealing with life or death situations in intensive care for 12 and 16 hours at a clip, running around a hospital with over 40 floors, covering the code team, rapid response, the ED, intrahospital pediatric and adult transport, and extrahospital pediatric transport? Surely you jest.

The concept of "privilege" is irritating, first off. I was a high school dropout that had no place to live for several years. I earned every bit of everything I have academically, working my ass off as a janitor, in retail, in fast food, whatever it took to get by. I was skinny all through community college because I bought books and gas for my car instead of food and I literally couldn't afford to eat. From all of that hard work, I earned a job in healthcare, but I also had to work my ass off in that job through the rest of undergrad, through a divorce, etc etc. I had it pretty damn bad is what I'm saying, and I still got by, and found the time to study for the MCAT and do well. Yeah, it was harder for me. But harder didn't mean impossible.

You do not need unlimited money to do well on the MCAT. You need to prioritize your time and buy the right books.

As to the material on the new MCAT, it is broader in nature but far more shallow in depth. I'd opt for the new MCAT over the old one any day. The psychology, sociology, stats, and ethics stuff is very rudimentary from the practice questions I've seen. And the cutbacks in the basic sciences have made the most difficult material get tossed aside. Dare I say, one probably needs less time to prepare for the new MCAT, not more. As to the disadvantaged, we've got boxes for financially disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged, URM, etc. If you feel you lost a couple of points because you couldn't cut back on working or whatever, check the box. Adcoms will factor it in. I still stand by the fact that you don't need an excess of money or time to do well on the MCAT, just dedication.

 

[Affiche]

A less taxing job than dealing with life or death situations in intensive care for 12 and 16 hours at a clip, running around a hospital with over 40 floors, covering the code team, rapid response, the ED, intrahospital pediatric and adult transport, and extrahospital pediatric transport? Surely you jest.

The concept of "privilege" is irritating, first off. I was a high school dropout that had no place to live for several years. I earned every bit of everything I have academically, working my ass off as a janitor, in retail, in fast food, whatever it took to get by. I was skinny all through community college because I bought books and gas for my car instead of food and I literally couldn't afford to eat. From all of that hard work, I earned a job in healthcare, but I also had to work my ass off in that job through the rest of undergrad, through a divorce, etc etc. I had it pretty damn bad is what I'm saying, and I still got by, and found the time to study for the MCAT and do well. Yeah, it was harder for me. But harder didn't mean impossible.

You do not need unlimited money to do well on the MCAT. You need to prioritize your time and buy the right books.

As to the material on the new MCAT, it is broader in nature but far more shallow in depth. I'd opt for the new MCAT over the old one any day. The psychology, sociology, stats, and ethics stuff is very rudimentary from the practice questions I've seen. And the cutbacks in the basic sciences have made the most difficult material get tossed aside. Dare I say, one probably needs less time to prepare for the new MCAT, not more. As to the disadvantaged, we've got boxes for financially disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged, URM, etc. If you feel you lost a couple of points because you couldn't cut back on working or whatever, check the box. Adcoms will factor it in. I still stand by the fact that you don't need an excess of money or time to do well on the MCAT, just dedication.

My point is that low SES is limiting at every step of the way (for an abundance of reasons).

I'll disagree with you on the new vs old MCAT. I took both (old score expired). The sciences hardly have any material tossed aside but also add in biochem. Stats/psych isn't difficult though, I'll give you that (just annoying memorization).

 

[Mad Jack]

My point is that low SES is limiting at every step of the way (for an abundance of reasons).

I'll disagree with you on the new vs old MCAT. I took both (old score expired). The sciences hardly have any material tossed aside but also add in biochem. Stats/psych isn't difficult though, I'll give you that (just annoying memorization).

Biology:

• Bone growth and bone generation
• Pedigree analysis
• Origin of life

General Chemistry:

• Phase Equilibria (but Phase Diagrams still tested)

Organic Chemistry:

• Simple organic compounds (e.g. alkanes, alkenes, alkynes), aromatic compounds, ethers, and amines no longer directly tested (This was both tested as recall and application)
• Acyl halides
• Mass spectroscopy (Annoying, very annoying)
• Recrystallization (Not too difficult, very conceptual)

Physics:

• Momentum (conceptually irritating)
• Solids (density, elastic properties, etc.) (heat transfer problems were notoriously difficult)
• Periodic motion (springs and pendulums) and wave characteristics (exception: spring potential energy still tested) (this is one of the most difficult concepts to manage without a calculator)
• Circular motion (this is arguably the most difficult concept to apply without a calculator)
• Alternating current (not so bad, if you could remember your circuits)

Some of the most difficult topics in physics were removed, along with much of organic chemistry. Pedigree analysis was one of the more difficult aspects for some students (I find them easy, but many found them difficult).

Here's what was added on the science front:

Biochemistry (Chemical and Physical Foundations):

• Acids and bases (already included in chemistry in a much more difficult form on prior exams)
• Ions in solutions (also already included in chemistry in a much more difficult form on prior exams)
• Separations and purifications of biological molecules (this is pretty much making up for some of the recrystalization orgo they dropped)
• Structure, function, and reactivity of biological molecules (Nucleotides, RNA, DNA, AAs, peptides, proteins, lipids, carbs, phenols and other aromatic compounds) (this is basic memorization)
• Bioenergetics, kinetics, and mechanisms of biological molecules (this is basic conceptual stuff, far less dificult than the energy and kinetics problems they removed from the physics section)

Biochemistry (Biological and Biochemical Foundations)

• Definition and biological function of biological molecules (AAs, carbs, DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes) (definitions are easy)
• Definition and principles of bioenergetics (again, definitions lol)
• Metabolism (breakdown of glucose, fatty acids, and proteins; citric acid cycle; ox-phos, and hormonal regulation of metabolism) (this is the most difficult portion of the things added, mostly due to the glucose, fatty acid, and protein stuff, but was partially covered in previous exams, such as the citric acid cycle)
• Plasma membrane structure and mechanisms (this can be a bit more difficult, but not at the depth they test)
• Biosignaling (the biosignaling covered is very, very basic definitional stuff)

Psychology/Sociology:

• Sensing the environment (vision, hearing, and other senses)
• Making sense of the environment (attention, cognition, consciousness, memory, and language)
• Emotion and stress
• Individual influences on behavior (biological influences, personality, psychological disorders, motivation, attitudes)
• Social influences on behavior (the presence of others, group processes, culture, socialization)
• Attitude and behavior change (habituation and dishabituation, associative learning, observational learning, theories of attitude and behavior change)
• Self-concept and identity formation
• Social thinking (attributing behavior to persons or situation, prejudice and bias, processes related to stereotypes)
• Social interaction (statuses, roles, networks) and self-presentation
• Social behavior (attachment, aggression, etc.)
• Discrimination
• Social structure (theoretical approaches, social institutions, culture)
• Demography (structure, shifts, and social change)
• Social inequality (health disparities, social class, etc.)

Note: Much of the behavioral sciences section will test your data analysis abilities and knowledge of experimental and research design.

Almost all of psych/soc is definitional, and very basic stuff at that. Not only that, but as with the old VR section, you can BS your way through it as long as you understand what you're reading (previously this was through reading comprehension, now it's largely done through study design comprehension, which is honestly a far easier skill to learn).

Maybe I'll take the new MCAT after Step 1 for the lulz and see how I do. The practice tests I've taken thusfar are really, really, ridiculously silly compared to the old test. Because of all of the above, I'm going to stand by "you don't need a ton of money or time to excel on the MCAT" be it the old one or the new one.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Biology:

• Bone growth and bone generation
• Pedigree analysis
• Origin of life

General Chemistry:

• Phase Equilibria (but Phase Diagrams still tested)

Organic Chemistry:

• Simple organic compounds (e.g. alkanes, alkenes, alkynes), aromatic compounds, ethers, and amines no longer directly tested (This was both tested as recall and application)
• Acyl halides
• Mass spectroscopy (Annoying, very annoying)
• Recrystallization (Not too difficult, very conceptual)

Physics:

• Momentum (conceptually irritating)
• Solids (density, elastic properties, etc.) (heat transfer problems were notoriously difficult)
• Periodic motion (springs and pendulums) and wave characteristics (exception: spring potential energy still tested) (this is one of the most difficult concepts to manage without a calculator)
• Circular motion (this is arguably the most difficult concept to apply without a calculator)
• Alternating current (not so bad, if you could remember your circuits)

Some of the most difficult topics in physics were removed, along with much of organic chemistry. Pedigree analysis was one of the more difficult aspects for some students (I find them easy, but many found them difficult).

Here's what was added on the science front:

Biochemistry (Chemical and Physical Foundations):

• Acids and bases (already included in chemistry in a much more difficult form on prior exams)
• Ions in solutions (also already included in chemistry in a much more difficult form on prior exams)
• Separations and purifications of biological molecules (this is pretty much making up for some of the recrystalization orgo they dropped)
• Structure, function, and reactivity of biological molecules (Nucleotides, RNA, DNA, AAs, peptides, proteins, lipids, carbs, phenols and other aromatic compounds) (this is basic memorization)
• Bioenergetics, kinetics, and mechanisms of biological molecules (this is basic conceptual stuff, far less dificult than the energy and kinetics problems they removed from the physics section)

Biochemistry (Biological and Biochemical Foundations)

• Definition and biological function of biological molecules (AAs, carbs, DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes) (definitions are easy)
• Definition and principles of bioenergetics (again, definitions lol)
• Metabolism (breakdown of glucose, fatty acids, and proteins; citric acid cycle; ox-phos, and hormonal regulation of metabolism) (this is the most difficult portion of the things added, mostly due to the glucose, fatty acid, and protein stuff, but was partially covered in previous exams, such as the citric acid cycle)
• Plasma membrane structure and mechanisms (this can be a bit more difficult, but not at the depth they test)
• Biosignaling (the biosignaling covered is very, very basic definitional stuff)

Psychology/Sociology:

• Sensing the environment (vision, hearing, and other senses)
• Making sense of the environment (attention, cognition, consciousness, memory, and language)
• Emotion and stress
• Individual influences on behavior (biological influences, personality, psychological disorders, motivation, attitudes)
• Social influences on behavior (the presence of others, group processes, culture, socialization)
• Attitude and behavior change (habituation and dishabituation, associative learning, observational learning, theories of attitude and behavior change)
• Self-concept and identity formation
• Social thinking (attributing behavior to persons or situation, prejudice and bias, processes related to stereotypes)
• Social interaction (statuses, roles, networks) and self-presentation
• Social behavior (attachment, aggression, etc.)
• Discrimination
• Social structure (theoretical approaches, social institutions, culture)
• Demography (structure, shifts, and social change)
• Social inequality (health disparities, social class, etc.)

Note: Much of the behavioral sciences section will test your data analysis abilities and knowledge of experimental and research design.

Almost all of psych/soc is definitional, and very basic stuff at that. Not only that, but as with the old VR section, you can BS your way through it as long as you understand what you're reading (previously this was through reading comprehension, now it's largely done through study design comprehension, which is honestly a far easier skill to learn).

Maybe I'll take the new MCAT after Step 1 for the lulz and see how I do. The practice tests I've taken thusfar are really, really, ridiculously silly compared to the old test. Because of all of the above, I'm going to stand by "you don't need a ton of money or time to excel on the MCAT" be it the old one or the new one.

if you took the aamc practice test, then yes it was ridiculously easy compared to the actual exam. I see that you breeze over all the topics that really require substantial amount of studying, especially biochemistry. The new mcat is challenging compared to old in terms of research based passages, biochemistry, a new section, and length.

 

[mehc012]

if you took the aamc practice test, then yes it was ridiculously easy compared to the actual exam. I see that you breeze over all the topics that really require substantial amount of studying, especially biochemistry. The new mcat is challenging compared to old in terms of research based passages, biochemistry, a new section, and length.

The biochem, at least what they included on the trial sections, was not content-dependent. It was just a test of parsing alphabet soup.

 

[GrapesofRath]

if you took the aamc practice test, then yes it was ridiculously easy compared to the actual exam. I see that you breeze over all the topics that really require substantial amount of studying, especially biochemistry. The new mcat is challenging compared to old in terms of research based passages, biochemistry, a new section, and length.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Ultimately through all the time I've spent thinking about both tests it comes down to this; those with significant research experience will have their strengths in many situations catered to the new version of the test. Those without it will have additional problems they didn't have on the old MCAT. Alot of the old physics and chem topics taken out were rather "learnable" skills. I do believe that a medical student who takes the new MCAT would find it an absolute joke because it tests on skills that those in the medical field have substantial experience learning.

I do think at the level at which the new MCAT tests biochem it is not all that conceptual based. It is alot of information yes, but to really get into conceptual biochem that really involves deep thinking and analytical skills involves taking upper level courses that the MCAT doesn't even come close to touching. Those who are biochem majors who take those courses are at a real advantage for this test.

Ultimately though at the end of the day I think the difference between the two is largely overblown. The new one takes more time to study I grant you that, but the difference in the test itself and how it is construed really hasn't changed as much as many hype it up. I still think the physical science section is rather learnable to a large extent for this one and was for the old one. I think psych/soc has very learnable skills such as definition and basic analysis. I think the CARS is just like the old verbal; alot of people are going to hate it, some will love it. And I don't think the bio section today is really that much different than the bio section of old which really had started to change in recent years; it's just with more focus on research type passages that will benefit some and hurt others.

 

[GrapesofRath]

if you took the aamc practice test, then yes it was ridiculously easy compared to the actual exam. I see that you breeze over all the topics that really require substantial amount of studying, especially biochemistry. The new mcat is challenging compared to old in terms of research based passages, biochemistry, a new section, and length.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Ultimately through all the time I've spent thinking about both tests it comes down to this; those with significant research experience will have their strengths in many situations catered to the new version of the test. Those without it will have additional problems they didn't have on the old MCAT. Alot of the old physics and chem topics taken out were rather "learnable" skills. I do believe that a medical student who takes the new MCAT would find it an absolute joke because it tests on skills that those in the medical field have substantial experience learning.

I do think at the level at which the new MCAT tests biochem it is not all that conceptual based. It is alot of information yes, but to really get into conceptual biochem that really involves deep thinking and analytical skills involves taking upper level courses that the MCAT doesn't even come close to touching. Those who are biochem majors who take those courses are at a real advantage for this test.

Ultimately though at the end of the day I think the difference between the two is largely overblown. The new one takes more time to study I grant you that, but the difference in the test itself and how it is construed really hasn't changed as much as many hype it up. I still think the physical science section is rather learnable to a large extent for this one and was for the old one. I think psych/soc has very learnable skills such as definition and basic analysis. I think the CARS is just like the old verbal; alot of people are going to hate it, some will love it. And I don't think the bio section today is really that much different than the bio section of old which really had started to change in recent years; it's just with more focus on research type passages that will benefit some and hurt others.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

The biochem, at least what they included on the trial sections, was not content-dependent. It was just a test of parsing alphabet soup.

Right, but that was your trial section not the actual exam lol

 

[Mad Jack]

if you took the aamc practice test, then yes it was ridiculously easy compared to the actual exam. I see that you breeze over all the topics that really require substantial amount of studying, especially biochemistry. The new mcat is challenging compared to old in terms of research based passages, biochemistry, a new section, and length.

Research-based passages aren't that hard. And, unlike the old VR section, one can easily learn how to interpret a scientific paper. With VR, you either had reading skills or you didn't- you can't learn how to read in 3 months.

 

[Satire5Texul]

I know someone who paid 20,000. Yes, 20 grand. California prep can be funny sometimes. The program essentially works with you until you until you get the score you want. And the girl scored a 24 on the old MCAT. She is now still with the same company, working on the new MCAT.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Research-based passages aren't that hard. And, unlike the old VR section, one can easily learn how to interpret a scientific paper. With VR, you either had reading skills or you didn't- you can't learn how to read in 3 months.

Perhaps the n=1 type of thing, but every single person I have spoken to who took both exams said the latter was more challenging (and rachie above). Sorry but I don't think people who have not even taken the new exam can accurately say what is more challenging based on crap quality practice exams or aamc topic list.

Lol I wasn't saying I personally found research based passages hard-- I actually found them easier. But it was more focused on application of material, which makes it challenging for many.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Ultimately through all the time I've spent thinking about both tests it comes down to this; those with significant research experience will have their strengths in many situations catered to the new version of the test. Those without it will have additional problems they didn't have on the old MCAT. Alot of the old physics and chem topics taken out were rather "learnable" skills. I do believe that a medical student who takes the new MCAT would find it an absolute joke because it tests on skills that those in the medical field have substantial experience learning.

I do think at the level at which the new MCAT tests biochem it is not all that conceptual based. It is alot of information yes, but to really get into conceptual biochem that really involves deep thinking and analytical skills involves taking upper level courses that the MCAT doesn't even come close to touching. Those who are biochem majors who take those courses are at a real advantage for this test.

Ultimately though at the end of the day I think the difference between the two is largely overblown. The new one takes more time to study I grant you that, but the difference in the test itself and how it is construed really hasn't changed as much as many hype it up. I still think the physical science section is rather learnable to a large extent for this one and was for the old one. I think psych/soc has very learnable skills such as definition and basic analysis. I think the CARS is just like the old verbal; alot of people are going to hate it, some will love it. And I don't think the bio section today is really that much different than the bio section of old which really had started to change in recent years; it's just with more focus on research type passages that will benefit some and hurt others.

I do agree the differences are overblown. Probably mostly due to the length of it.

 

[tenblackalps]

No matter the inherent "difficulty" of the new exam vs. the old exam, you still have to study comparatively hard to score in the top percentiles.

 

[Satire5Texul]

Perhaps the n=1 type of thing, but every single person I have spoken to who took both exams said the latter was more challenging (and rachie above). Sorry but I don't think people who have not even taken the new exam can accurately say what is more challenging based on crap quality practice exams or aamc topic list.

Lol I wasn't saying I personally found research based passages hard-- I actually found them easier. But it was more focused on application of material, which makes it challenging for many.

Do you think taking the new MCAT for the purpose of voiding it is a good idea? I mean going off what you just said: there isnt really good prep out there. and most people cant relay how the experience was.
I kind of have a problem with this application thing. I rely heavily on memorization. So you could say I am a terrible multiple choice test taker. I do significantly better on fill in the blank.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Do you think taking the new MCAT for the purpose of voiding it is a good idea? I mean going off what you just said: there isnt really good prep out there. and most people cant relay how the experience was.
I kind of have a problem with this application thing. I rely heavily on memorization. So you could say I am a terrible multiple choice test taker. I do significantly better on fill in the blank.

No you don't need a $300 practice test where you will never know how you did anyways. Don't do that. Take it when you are ready. Not sure but I think the prep material is better now than it was several months ago.

Memorization is fine but make sure you can analyze research

 

[Gandyy]

You could certainly make a case that when compared to GPA vs MCAT the MCAT might actually not get quite enough emphasis in medical school admission.

Well... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think the MCAT is worshiped enough by admissions committees as is, and I don't think it needs to be raised any higher on the pedestal.

 

[Gandyy]

Perhaps the n=1 type of thing, but every single person I have spoken to who took both exams said the latter was more challenging (and rachie above). Sorry but I don't think people who have not even taken the new exam can accurately say what is more challenging based on crap quality practice exams or aamc topic list.

Lol I wasn't saying I personally found research based passages hard-- I actually found them easier. But it was more focused on application of material, which makes it challenging for many.

See I've heard it about a 50 50 split.

In fact I personally know quite a few people who made a 24-25 on the old MCAT, but made a 32+ equivalent on the new one.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Well... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think the MCAT is worshiped enough by admissions committees as is, and I don't think it needs to be raised any higher on the pedestal.

Or we could be like other countries where admission would only be based on MCAT and gpa

 

[Gandyy]

Or we could be like other countries where admission would only be based on MCAT and gpa

Oh god.... Please no.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Do you think taking the new MCAT for the purpose of voiding it is a good idea? I mean going off what you just said: there isnt really good prep out there. and most people cant relay how the experience was.
I kind of have a problem with this application thing. I rely heavily on memorization. So you could say I am a terrible multiple choice test taker. I do significantly better on fill in the blank.

Worth also noting gonnif pointed out last week that schools can know now days that you voided a test.

I personally have never thought this was that bad an idea(getting the feel for the real MCAT and how different it is from practice, how different it is, the pressure of the day, the routine etc I think is actually valuable in my view contrary to what many on SDN say about this) but this really symbolizes the idea of privilege and differences in SES by just taking a practice test for $300 that you don't know how you did on. There definitely are many people who cannot afford indulgences and luxuries like this(and no its not just the $300 its the idea of having these types of luxuries you can be afforded that those less well off can't and they add up). Now, if you ask me which is a better use of money a $2k prep course or $300 on this its easily the $300 but you should at least be aware schools can find out if you voided and that there are clear limitations in the use of this if you partake in something like this which I'm somewhere in the middle on actually doing .

 

[Satire5Texul]

Worth also noting gonnif pointed out last week that schools can know now days that you voided a test.

I personally have never thought this was that bad an idea(getting the feel for the real MCAT and how different it is from practice, how different it is, the pressure of the day, the routine etc I think is actually valuable in my view contrary to what many on SDN say about this) but this really symbolizes the idea of privilege and differences in SES by just taking a practice test for $300 that you don't know how you did on. There definitely are many people who cannot afford indulgences and luxuries like this(and no its not just the $300 its the idea of having these types of luxuries you can be afforded that those less well off can't and they add up). Now, if you ask me which is a better use of money a $2k prep course or $300 on this its easily the $300 but you should at least be aware schools can find out if you voided and that there are clear limitations in the use of this if you partake in something like this which I'm somewhere in the middle on actually doing .

I hear ya. To be clear, I actually am not that well off I simply will find a financial way if there is a will. I would hussle any which way possible to make this work, and that includes credit card debt and so on. In my personal situation, I actually would qualify for a fee waiver and I didnt think this was a bad idea to use it in this manner and pay for the test in full later.

Its kind of sad but like this topic suggests, and is ubiquitously known, there is certainly a monetary side to premed prep that makes in unfair like you pointed out.

[e] but to me the idea of sitting in on it seems priceless and well worth it. so thats why I said money is not a factor.

ummm.....wait.......

How is it they can find out ...?

 

[ZedsDed]

See I've heard it about a 50 50 split.

In fact I personally know quite a few people who made a 24-25 on the old MCAT, but made a 32+ equivalent on the new one.

Interesting. You would think this wouldn't be the case if it was simply that new MCAT=Old MCAT+ psych/soc. I'm surprised @efle isn't all over this thread btw lol.

 

[Gandyy]

Interesting. You would think this wouldn't be the case if it was simply that new MCAT=Old MCAT+ psych/soc. I'm surprised @efle isn't all over this thread btw lol.

Yea, its quite odd. Efle and I talked were talking about a user on this forum who scored a 25 on the old MCAT but scored very well on the newer one as well.

Tis a bit fishy. Perhaps people are better suited to the research style questions given on this new one. I cant give a real answer to it because I only took the old one.