is the MCAT getting harder and harder?

[aspiring20]

---

Members don't see this ad.

a lot of my friends scored high 30s on virtually all of the released AAMC exams (including 10/11), and many of them didn't even break 30 on the real thing. they claim that the real MCAT they took was much harder/different than the AAMC.

this is very concerning since people say that the released AAMC exams are very/quite representative of your performance on the real thing.

lastly, IF the MCAT is getting harder and wilder each month...how will they adjust the scoring scale?

i haven't taken any AAMC exams yet, but the TPR full lengths i've taken are quite tough.

 

[mcloaf]

I didn't find the real thing to be any worse than the practice exams. And, as you bring up yourself, the test is scaled so even if it were more difficult as long as you're keeping up with your peers the score won't change. I find it more likely that the stress/anxiety of dealing with the real thing is the culprit for people who significantly underperform their expected score--that or I suppose it would be possible if they had a number of weak subjects and got very unlucky in the passage topics of their exam.

 

[aspiring20]

I didn't find the real thing to be any worse than the practice exams. And, as you bring up yourself, the test is scaled so even if it were more difficult as long as you're keeping up with your peers the score won't change. I find it more likely that the stress/anxiety of dealing with the real thing is the culprit for people who significantly underperform their expected score--that or I suppose it would be possible if they had a number of weak subjects and got very unlucky in the passage topics of their exam.

thanks mcloaf.

i just hope i can survive this beast. my TPR full length diagnostics is around a 30-32, and i have under 4 month to kick it up into an acceptable range for someone with my background and history.

 

[Hemorrage]

I didn't find the real thing to be any worse than the practice exams. And, as you bring up yourself, the test is scaled so even if it were more difficult as long as you're keeping up with your peers the score won't change. I find it more likely that the stress/anxiety of dealing with the real thing is the culprit for people who significantly underperform their expected score--that or I suppose it would be possible if they had a number of weak subjects and got very unlucky in the passage topics of their exam.

i really really hope you're right

 

[marcdagr8]

The real thing is not getting tougher. That would just be silly.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I think the term easy and hard are subjective.

Some people prefer calculation problems while others do better at conceptual problems.

Some like knowledge-based passages while others like experimental passages.

I, for example, do better on cellular level biology passages than I do on physiology passages. Therefore, if the BS section is heavily geared toward physiology I tend to perform worse.

 

[mcloaf]

I think the term easy and hard are subjective.

Some people prefer calculation problems while others do better at conceptual problems.

Some like knowledge-based passages while others like experimental passages.

I, for example, do better on cellular level biology passages than I do on physiology passages. Therefore, if the BS section is heavily geared toward physiology I tend to perform worse.

This is definitely what I was getting at. The only way to minimize the variation between exams is to know everything reasonably well, which can be a challenge depending on one's skills and background from UG. This is also why taking care of weak areas is so important rather than just hoping that they won't be on your test (for example, see all the threads created by people asking if they really need to know ochem).

I will say that my exam (Jan 2012) had a lot more number crunching in the PS than I expected from the practice exams. Whether this made the test harder or easier depends on your skill set. I had done a ton of calculations with TBR and EK1001's, so thankfully it didn't negatively impact my outcome.

 

[aspiring20]

This is definitely what I was getting at. The only way to minimize the variation between exams is to know everything reasonably well, which can be a challenge depending on one's skills and background from UG. This is also why taking care of weak areas is so important rather than just hoping that they won't be on your test (for example, see all the threads created by people asking if they really need to know ochem).

I will say that my exam (Jan 2012) had a lot more number crunching in the PS than I expected from the practice exams. Whether this made the test harder or easier depends on your skill set. I had done a ton of calculations with TBR and EK1001's, so thankfully it didn't negatively impact my outcome.

this is helpful advice.

but everyone on here keeps saying that the real exam is much harder than the AAMC ones, and that most people drop 1-2 points on the sciences compared to their AAMC averages. how accurate do you think this is?

 

[MD Odyssey]

but everyone on here keeps saying that the real exam is much harder than the AAMC ones, and that most people drop 1-2 points on the sciences compared to their AAMC averages. how accurate do you think this is?

Everyone on here lies. True story.

 

[Temperature101]

a lot of my friends scored high 30s on virtually all of the released AAMC exams (including 10/11), and many of them didn't even break 30 on the real thing. they claim that the real MCAT they took was much harder/different than the AAMC.

this is very concerning since people say that the released AAMC exams are very/quite representative of your performance on the real thing.

lastly, IF the MCAT is getting harder and wilder each month...how will they adjust the scoring scale?

i haven't taken any AAMC exams yet, but the TPR full lengths i've taken are quite tough.

Yes it is getting harder...I have spent a lot of time on SDN (MCAT forum) for the past couple of years and never heard anyone said their test was easy like AAMC3 or AAMC4.

 

[shoehornlettuce]

In my limited experience the test is changing, however, this doesn't necessarily mean it is getting more difficult.

Take orgo for example. I remember reading through many different threads that concluded that orgo II content was minimal and only worth studying if you had mastered everything else. This didn't concern me because I was fresh off my orgo II course prior to taking the MCAT. During the test I remember thinking "I would be screwed if I wasn't strong in orgo and had listened to this advice (there were 2 orgo passages and several discretes all focusing on reactions not covered until late orgo II)."

Point being, I think it was pretty well evidenced that orgo II topics were rare / nonexistent up until recent. The orgo on the MCAT isn't particularly difficult. You just have to make the necessary adjustments in your study plan.

BS passages also seem to be getting more dense and "out there" so to speak. On the flip side of the coin, most of the answers can be found in the passages. If you're an excellent reader but have a weak bio background, this could be to your advantage.

Regarding the PS section, I've heard people talking about an increase in calculations and heavy math. Doing the math manually is always an option but I feel like people are missing the more elegant ways to solve these problems. More often than not these "calculation based problems" can be solved in a fraction of the time using test taking logic (and I believe this is how they were designed to be solved).

 

[mcloaf]

this is helpful advice.

but everyone on here keeps saying that the real exam is much harder than the AAMC ones, and that most people drop 1-2 points on the sciences compared to their AAMC averages. how accurate do you think this is?

Eh, I was right at or just above my section averages, and there are people on here who surpass their averages as well. There were a number of really high scores in the most recent batch of SDNers posting on here (Jan).

Some of my highest practice scores were the later AAMC FLs, so I'm not really sure why people think the earlier ones are so much easier.

I will say that I think being a molecular bio major was helpful with the experimental focus some of the BS passages take. Either way, like I said before, I think the curve makes a lot of this concern moot anyway since all your peers will be suffering through the same stuff.

 

[MD Odyssey]

Delete.

 

[MD Odyssey]

Few thoughts.

1. If it has gotten more difficult, it doesn't matter. You have to take the exam, so whether the content has gotten harder is a moot point. Quit worrying, do your best, and quit your crying.
   
2. SDN is the most ridiculous place around...The vast majority of the people on this forum that talk about MCAT scores are full of ****. The fact is that only a small percentage of test takers score above a 35 and the number that claim to score in the 38-42 range are simply not telling the truth.
   
3. The practice exams were surprisingly similar to the real thing. Focus on being able to do those and ignore all the rest.

 

[Temperature101]

two thoughts.

1. if it has gotten more difficult, it doesn't matter. You have to take the exam, so whether the content has gotten harder is a moot point. Quit worrying, do your best, and quit your crying.
   
2. sdn is the most ridiculous place around...the vast majority of the people on this forum that talk about mcat scores are full of ****. The fact is that only a small percentage of test takers score above a 35 and the number that claim to score in the 38-42 range are simply not telling the truth.
   
3. the practice exams were surprisingly similar to the real thing. Focus on being able to do those and ignore all the rest.

+1000...

 

[circulus vitios]

SDN is the most ridiculous place around...The vast majority of the people on this forum that talk about MCAT scores are full of ****. The fact is that only a small percentage of test takers score above a 35 and the number that claim to score in the 38-42 range are simply not telling the truth.