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

[ZedsDed]

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.

Yeah, ditto.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I analyzed above what I thought the key differences were but at the end of the day I think the differences are largely overblown. What make the MCAT "harder" or "easier" to do well on is all about the people you end up indirectly competing with to see where you place on the percentile of the curve. As long as that doesn't change, while some will be better suited for this version vs some for the older version, the differences really aren't as significant as some make it out to be.

The tests at their core test the same basic skills. Some will argue "the new MCAT has more research based passages and is more critical thinking" but honestly to me while that might be true its offset by the fact that at the level the MCAT tests biochem it really isn't "critical thinking" per se, its understanding and knowing basic concepts(like what feedback inhibition in fatty oxidation etc). Alot of what is tested on biochem is tested in a way that the skills needed for it are learnable. It's the more complex biochem biochem majors take that really tests thinking and real conceptual mastery. Psych/soc so far has been a mix of CARs analysis, research analysis and terminology/memorization. Again, alot of this are skills that can be learned. The big thing I'll say is that some didn't prepare for the new MCAT the right way given how foreign it was and how much was unknown about it. The test companies that back in Feb and March before any MCAT was released that said "oh no need to memorize amino acids" were laughably wrong. Many didn't give biochem or psych/soc sufficient time. But those who took time to study for this test(and this version takes more time to study for) are going to be tested on the same skills; I don't think the two versions really differ all that much at the end of the day.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

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.

Could be that they took it in a hurry in January unprepared, but then studied hard for the new mcat and reached their true potential

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I analyzed above what I thought the key differences were but at the end of the day I think the differences are largely overblown. What make the MCAT "harder" or "easier" to do well on is all about the people you end up indirectly competing with to see where you place on the percentile of the curve. As long as that doesn't change, while some will be better suited for this version vs some for the older version, the differences really aren't as significant as some make it out to be.

The tests at their core test the same basic skills. Some will argue "the new MCAT has more research based passages and is more critical thinking" but honestly to me while that might be true its offset by the fact that at the level the MCAT tests biochem it really isn't "critical thinking" per se, its understanding and knowing basic concepts(like what feedback inhibition in fatty oxidation etc). Alot of what is tested on biochem is tested in a way that the skills needed for it are learnable. It's the more complex biochem biochem majors take that really tests thinking and real conceptual mastery. Psych/soc so far has been a mix of CARs analysis, research analysis and terminology/memorization. Again, alot of this are skills that can be learned. The big thing I'll say is that some didn't prepare for the new MCAT the right way given how foreign it was and how much was unknown about it. The test companies that back in Feb and March before any MCAT was released that said "oh no need to memorize amino acids" were laughably wrong. Many didn't give biochem or psych/soc sufficient time. But those who took time to study for this test(and this version takes more time to study for) are going to be tested on the same skills; I don't think the two versions really differ all that much at the end of the day.

Why would the mcat test things that could not be learned?

 

[Gandyy]

Could be that they took it in a hurry in January unprepared, but then studied hard for the new mcat and reached their true potential

Yea but crazy thing is that some of these individuals studied like crazy for both exams.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Why would the mcat test things that could not be learned?

Learned is all relative. The MCAT at its core is an aptitude test. Some skills(learning the basic MCAT physics and how it is tested) are alot more "learnable" than those such as reading comprehension in CARS(those are skills learned and developed throughout life and where natural born skills plays a role). But at the end of the day everybody has a certain limit or ceiling they can hit in terms of score. Many don't reach their ceiling/full potential. But the MCAT is not a content or knowledge based test; you don't simply study months and months till you know everything and ace the MCAT. If people had unlimited time to study for Step 1, it's difficulty wouldn't be nearly as what it was. Alot of people who study their ass off, get a 30 or so wouldn't just magically go up to 36+ even if they had 6 months to study instead of 2. For content based tests like you see in college, that difference in time spent makes a huge difference. That's really what I was getting at; some skills the MCAT tests are made so that they are alot less learnable over several months than others.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Yea but crazy thing is that some of these individuals studied like crazy for both exams.

What I'm saying is that they had studied for a really long by the time they took the new mcat, and all those practice questions could account for the difference

 

[Gandyy]

What I'm saying is that they had studied for a really long by the time they took the new mcat, and all those practice questions could account for the difference

Could be very well true. Who knows. I'm just glad I didnt have to take the new one lol

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Could be very well true. Who knows. I'm just glad I didnt have to take the new one lol

you missed out, it was fun

 

[Satire5Texul]

o

 

[efle]

All you need to prep is a set of books, classes are a massive waste. And you can get the books used for super ****ing cheap if you put any effort into it. You can also get them online for free if you're the type to download a car...
Prep is also only a part-time demand for ~2 months, but would be rough if you're otherwise committed full-time all year

So for the vast majority of test takers, I don't think giving the person unlimited access to test resources would change anything.

 

[Mad Jack]

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

I'd be 300% okay with that

 

[efle]

I'd be 300% okay with that

But don't you think making premeds pretend to be interested in volunteerism greatly increases Diversity in the leaders of tomorrow?

 

[Mad Jack]

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 ...?

There really isn't that much of a monetary bent to it. Kaplan and other such companies prey upon the fear of test takers- "if every other tester is taking a course, I should too." But many of the best scorers I've known, myself included, were self studiers, which is quite inexpensive. Money doesn't give near as much an edge as the clever marketers would have you believe.

 

[Mad Jack]

But don't you think making premeds pretend to be interested in volunteerism greatly increases Diversity in the leaders of tomorrow?

I lol'd.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I'd be 300% okay with that

That + LORs to make sure people are not crazy

 

[Mad Jack]

That + LORs to make sure people are not crazy

Nah, that's what interviews are for. The number of people that are close enough with their letter writers to actually have decent proof that they're not crazy is much lower than you'd think. They measure your sucking up ability far more than your sanity.

 

[Mavs88]

The title should really be if time was not an object. But I guess time is money...so you win OP?

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Nah, that's what interviews are for. The number of people that are close enough with their letter writers to actually have decent proof that they're not crazy is much lower than you'd think. They measure your sucking up ability far more than your sanity.

Then you'll need Ecs to talk about lol

 

[Mad Jack]

Then you'll need Ecs to talk about lol

ECs measure your ability to pretend to ne people far more than your ability to actually be people.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

ECs measure your ability to pretend to ne people far more than your ability to actually be people.

what do you mean by be people

 

[Mad Jack]

what do you mean by be people

If you were people, you'd know

 

[Womb Raider]

I haven't seen any practice questions or what not.. But I'm having a hard time understanding how they (the test makers) can objectify ethics. Seems ethically dubious IMO. Anyone care to explain?

 

[Glazedonutlove]

If you were people, you'd know

How I become this people you speak of

 

[efle]

I haven't seen any practice questions or what not.. But I'm having a hard time understanding how they (the test makers) can objectify ethics. Seems ethically dubious IMO. Anyone care to explain?

Are there ethics questions in the MCAT...?

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Are there ethics questions in the MCAT...?

Nope

 

[GrapesofRath]

Nope

There are some psych/soc questions I could definitely see the MCAT argue test "ethical understanding and considerations"

 

[Glazedonutlove]

There are some psych/soc questions I could definitely see the MCAT argue test "ethical understanding and considerations"

Didn't see anything remotely close to ethical topics but maybe it was lacking on my particular exam

 

[el_duderino]

Why would the mcat test things that could not be learned?

Why wouldn't it? During the first year of med school you can catch up learning anything you needed to know beforehand but somehow missed during prereq classes. No big deal. It should, in an ideal world, be a test of how well (and quickly) you're able to adapt and integrate new information, because that's what you really need in medical school and on the USMLE.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Why wouldn't it? During the first year of med school you can catch up learning anything you needed to know beforehand but somehow missed during prereq classes. No big deal. It should, in an ideal world, be a test of how well (and quickly) you're able to adapt and integrate new information, because that's what you really need in medical school and on the USMLE.

Oh I didn't mean you should go into MCAT as an expert in every topic. But if you know the basics, it's not hard to understand something that just appears to be more complex

i get how some skills in verbal may be not be as easy to learn