Is getting a 32+ as hard as they say?

[passionformed]

Some people on SDN say that they know people with 3.8+ who cannot break 32. Why is this? Is it truly a test of intelligence or is very possible to break 32 with adequate preparation (using the right books, studying for 3 months using the SDN guide, etc.)?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Frazier]

A bulk of that 85% percent includes people that are only 1/10th as motivated as the people on this forum and also people who take prep classes and believe taking a class = 30+. The MCAT takes discipline to master

yep.

 

[supportivehubby]

A bulk of that 85% percent includes people that are only 1/10th as motivated as the people on this forum and also people who take prep classes and believe taking a class = 30+. The MCAT takes discipline to master

HaHa! Yes, most of my prep course classmates definitely attempted passive style of absorbing and I am certain they would have retaken the course or taken the other company course thinking that the first company was no good. . . . lazy.


To OP:

Yes. It is hard. Particularly maintaining confidence while getting intellectually back-ended for several months.

For me the equation was:
Prep class + 50-60h/week + 19 FL + discipline + confidence + recent courses + supportivehubby + robot-mode + 3.5 months = 38

 

[Hemorrage]

HaHa! Yes, most of my prep course classmates definitely attempted passive style of absorbing and I am certain they would have retaken the course or taken the other company course thinking that the first company was no good. . . . lazy.


To OP:

Yes. It is hard. Particularly maintaining confidence while getting intellectually back-ended for several months.

For me the equation was:
Prep class + 50-60h/week + 19 FL + discipline + confidence + recent courses + supportivehubby + robot-mode + 3.5 months = 38

Congrats!

And yeah, i'm currently a junior and of course several of my "pre-med" friends have already begun giving me "advice" and bragging about how their expensive prep courses are really helping them alot yet most of them hardly ever do any practice problems at home aside from the "assigned" homework for the class. I don't want to wish them ill will but at the same time i do know for a fact conquering this exam takes more effort than what they are putting in.. which is of course what 80% of test-takers do too.

 

[GadRads]

...what? Sure, it might require more critical thinking skills (which are perhaps less objective than basic knowledge mastery), but I wouldn't say it's "unstudiable." If you know the material and do practice exams to get a feel for the exam, you will be prepared. Sure, maybe it's not possible for everyone to get 39+, but everyone is capable of at least getting into the low to mid 30s.

I'm suspicious of the claim that MCAT VR requires more critical thinking skills than the sciences. If this were true, people who score 12+ on VR wouldn't score <10 on the sciences, but it happens. The anticipated counter-claim that they didn't study the science material well is unlikely.

The problem I had with MCAT VR wasn't critical thinking but the allotted time. When I took an additional 10 or so minutes on a VR test, I would understand more and get more questions correct. Once most test-takers understand the VR passage, the answers aren't that hard to find. That's why passages are usually dense to create an added level of difficulty. I think this is the biggest barrier. Half of test-takers would score 10-11 given some extra time.

I don't have this issue with science since I read science material faster than random passages on Tolstoy and art weaving, and can even do it with less concentration.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm suspicious of the claim that MCAT VR requires more critical thinking skills than the sciences. If this were true, people who score 12+ on VR wouldn't score <10 on the sciences, but it happens. The anticipated counter-claim that they didn't study the science material well is unlikely.

The problem I had with MCAT VR wasn't critical thinking but the allotted time. When I took an additional 10 or so minutes on a VR test, I would understand more and get more questions correct. Once most test-takers understand the VR passage, the answers aren't that hard to find. That's why passages are usually dense to create an added level of difficulty. I think this is the biggest barrier. Half of test-takers would score 10-11 given some extra time.

I don't have this issue with science since I read science material faster than random passages on Tolstoy and art weaving, and can even do it with less concentration.

Everyone will have a different experience with it. They both require critical thinking skills, but VR has less reliance on a broad body of foundational knowledge than, say, the science questions. If you don't understand a passage on VR or if you can't read well, you're screwed. If you don't understand a passage in BS/PS, it's still possible to get the question correct based on the knowledge you DO have. At least that was my experience.

 

[cuculici1]

Everyone will have a different experience with it. They both require critical thinking skills, but VR has less reliance on a broad body of foundational knowledge than, say, the science questions. If you don't understand a passage on VR or if you can't read well, you're screwed. If you don't understand a passage in BS/PS, it's still possible to get the question correct based on the knowledge you DO have. At least that was my experience.

Yeah, it's actually interesting how prior knowledge also comes into play in verbal as well. For example, on AAMC 3 there is a passage on the formation of the Earth and its magnetic fields, and because I took a geology course in college it was easier to get the questions correct. Same thing holds true if you took a philosophy course in college and end up reading a passage on Frederich Nietzsche. The thing is the breadth of topics that are fair game on verbal are so vast that it is impossible to "study" the content outside of what you learned throughout your education/life.

 

[gettheleadout]

Yeah, it's actually interesting how prior knowledge also comes into play in verbal as well. For example, on AAMC 3 there is a passage on the formation of the Earth and its magnetic fields, and because I took a geology course in college it was easier to get the questions correct. Same thing holds true if you took a philosophy course in college and end up reading a passage on Frederich Nietzsche. The thing is the breadth of topics that are fair game on verbal are so vast that it is impossible to "study" the content outside of what you learned throughout your education/life.

Just as a side note, outside knowledge is generally a big no-no for VR. Everything you need is in the passage, though obviously familiarity with a subject can make it easier to understand.

 

[cuculici1]

Just as a side note, outside knowledge is generally a big no-no for VR. Everything you need is in the passage, though obviously familiarity with a subject can make it easier to understand.

Agreed, that is pretty much the only advantage to having background knowledge in a particular subject. It's still an advantage in terms of understanding what the passage is talking about.