Kaplan vs Princeton Review

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

CollegePark

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Anyone, by any chance, took both of the classes or studied both of the prep books? I've only looked at Kaplan prep books, but want to know how Princeton Review courses are structured and how their books are.

Thanks.
 
CollegePark said:
Anyone, by any chance, took both of the classes or studied both of the prep books? I've only looked at Kaplan prep books, but want to know how Princeton Review courses are structured and how their books are.

Thanks.

I didn't take the courses but reviewed both books and found TPR to be more helpful, especially in Bio. The Kaplan one is almost identical to the Kaplan DAT book for bio, gchem and ochem, which kind of made me feel that Kaplan paid less attention to the MCAT's specific needs.
 
from what i hear, the princeton review course is a lot better. my friends who took the kaplan course said they had one teacher for all the sections. she was a very intelligent person (MD/PhD student who dropped out of the program) but she had some serious personal issues (depressed, alcoholic, forgetting about class). i know that might just be one person but kaplan didn't do anything about after numerous complaints from my friends.
the princeton review (which i took) had some very good teachers. also the homework problems were very helpful (kaplan has some online stuff which i borrowed from my friends. i remembered them being time consuming and pretty impossible).
 
mintendo said:
from what i hear, the princeton review course is a lot better. my friends who took the kaplan course said they had one teacher for all the sections. she was a very intelligent person (MD/PhD student who dropped out of the program) but she had some serious personal issues (depressed, alcoholic, forgetting about class). i know that might just be one person but kaplan didn't do anything about after numerous complaints from my friends.
the princeton review (which i took) had some very good teachers. also the homework problems were very helpful (kaplan has some online stuff which i borrowed from my friends. i remembered them being time consuming and pretty impossible).

I took Kaplan course 2 or 3 yrs ago and I remember I had 3 diff. teachers for 3 diff. sections, but it was my fault that I didn't fully utilize their exams and resources at the center that I felt like I wasted the $. I want to take April MCAT in 2006, and wonder if I should take Kaplan again b/c I am used (?) to it or try something new... I compared both Princeton Review and Kaplan course schedules. Princeton review had two choices: taking 2.5 hr long classes everyday from Mon-Thurs or taking all-day weekend classes (3:30-6 then 7 to 9:30/ day). Which schedule did you take and what type of resources did Princeton Review have outside the classroom?

Thank you very much for your time and responses guys!!
 
CollegePark said:
I took Kaplan course 2 or 3 yrs ago and I remember I had 3 diff. teachers for 3 diff. sections, but it was my fault that I didn't fully utilize their exams and resources at the center that I felt like I wasted the $. I want to take April MCAT in 2006, and wonder if I should take Kaplan again b/c I am used (?) to it or try something new... I compared both Princeton Review and Kaplan course schedules. Princeton review had two choices: taking 2.5 hr long classes everyday from Mon-Thurs or taking all-day weekend classes (3:30-6 then 7 to 9:30/ day). Which schedule did you take and what type of resources did Princeton Review have outside the classroom?

Thank you very much for your time and responses guys!!


The TPR I took was a combination of weekday and weekend classes.
I think I had 3 classes during the week (7 to 9:30 pm. It was pretty nice because there were only like 7 people in our class) and then two classes on Sunday (12 to 2:30, and then 3 to 5:30). Then every other Saturday or so there is a full length MCAT: half were written by TPR, half were written by AAMC.

TPR was pretty much like a class. There is a syllabus that you follow. After each class, there is a list of questions and passages you can do from the workbook. I did every homework question they assigned and it would take me 2 to 2.5 hours a day. There is also a MCAT online on the TPR website you can do.
 
y friends who took the kaplan course said they had one teacher for all the sections. she was a very intelligent person (MD/PhD student who dropped out of the program) but she had some serious personal issues (depressed, alcoholic, forgetting about class). i know that might just be one person but kaplan didn't do anything about after numerous complaints from my friends.

whatever U do DO NOT take a women as a teacher at kaplan or PR. They are the worst. Usually they dont have a fifth of the knowledge the male teachers does. My 2 $cents.
 
I'm taking the Princeton Review class now for the April MCAT.

I also took this class back in 1993. The reason why I chose this one over Kaplan is because the Princeton Review/Hyperlearing classes really go over and even teach the material. Since it's been many years since I've completed the prerequisites, I figured this would be the best way to get a comprehensive review.

I looked at the Kaplan classes and it seems there are not as many sessions, and from what I read, there is more emphasis on "strategy" rather than hard-core review of the topics.

The Princeton Review materials also seem pretty good, esp. the Bio review book. I think the author of the PR Bio book even taught my Bio review class at UC Irvine back in 1993. He really knew his stuff.
 
CollegePark said:
Anyone, by any chance, took both of the classes or studied both of the prep books? I've only looked at Kaplan prep books, but want to know how Princeton Review courses are structured and how their books are.

Thanks.

I didn't take a course but I did use my friend's material. I looked at ALL of them which includes Kaplan, Princeton, Berkeley, and Examkrackers. I would say Princetown had the best material combined with the AAMC exams and the 101 EK verbal passages and you're damn good!!!
 
TQ14Burrion said:
whatever U do DO NOT take a women as a teacher at kaplan or PR. They are the worst. Usually they dont have a fifth of the knowledge the male teachers does. My 2 $cents.


Uh- I hope that is a joke.

I took PR and thought it was well structured. Different teachers for different sections seemed like a good idea, but also the fact that the subjects were spread out over the whole course was a major plus for me.

If you're a disciplined person- skip the course and save yourself $1300.

Good luck.
 
whatever U do DO NOT take a women as a teacher at kaplan or PR. They are the worst. Usually they dont have a fifth of the knowledge the male teachers does. My 2 $cents.


Uh- I hope that is a joke.

I took PR and thought it was well structured. Different teachers for different sections seemed like a good idea, but also the fact that the subjects were spread out over the whole course was a major plus for me.

If you're a disciplined person- skip the course and save yourself $1300.

Good luck.

Uh no its no joke. Women doesn't belong in science and make lousy lousy teachers compard to males. Sorry to burst your bubble but look at how many professors are men compared to women. Recently study at Britain College showed that for every 5 males 145 IQ points or above onlly 1 female was 145 or above. Coinsidence? U do the math. My .02 $cents
 
Back when I took an abridged TPR course in 2000 (4 weekends before the MCAT.... a test each weekend), I found the TPR tests to be more on par with my actual score compared to the kaplan tests I had taken (they definitely overestimated my actual score).
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Uh no its no joke. Women doesn't belong in science and make lousy lousy teachers compard to males. Sorry to burst your bubble but look at how many professors are men compared to women. Recently study at Britain College showed that for every 5 males 145 IQ points or above onlly 1 female was 145 or above. Coinsidence? U do the math. My .02 $cents

Hmmm...maybe make sure that you can spell and use proper grammar before you criticize someone's intelligence--your inability to do this just adds to the extreme ignorance that your comments alone show. Poor writing skills plus sexist attitude: "coinsidence"...I think not.
 
Uh no its no joke. Women doesn't belong in science and make lousy lousy teachers compard to males. Sorry to burst your bubble but look at how many professors are men compared to women. Recently study at Britain College showed that for every 5 males 145 IQ points or above onlly 1 female was 145 or above. Coinsidence? U do the math. My .02 $cents

kbkb said:
Hmmm...maybe make sure that you can spell and use proper grammar before you criticize someone's intelligence--your inability to do this just adds to the extreme ignorance that your comments alone show. Poor writing skills plus sexist attitude: "coinsidence"...I think not.


Yeah well U have ignoredh the points I made whilest acttackign me personally. The fact remains that women are lower in intelligence in general. 5:1 ratio proves this. IQ test is verifiable fact of intelligence because all subjects camee from same backgrounds in the reasearchers' test. I don't know why people get so much aoworked up about this U know. If U can't handle the truth don't go into medicine. my $.02 cents
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Yeah well U have ignoredh the points I made whilest acttackign me personally. The fact remains that women are lower in intelligence in general. 5:1 ratio proves this. IQ test is verifiable fact of intelligence because all subjects camee from same backgrounds in the reasearchers' test. I don't know why people get so much aoworked up about this U know. If U can't handle the truth don't go into medicine. my $.02 cents

Uh... What you're trying to say is that men and women are built differently.However each and every individual is different, so no generalization holds true. By the way, there are more women in college than men on the worldwide and national scale (assuming you're American or Canadian). You must be a child, no future doctor or scientist would ever make a foolish statement like that.
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Yeah well U have ignoredh the points I made whilest acttackign me personally. The fact remains that women are lower in intelligence in general. 5:1 ratio proves this. IQ test is verifiable fact of intelligence because all subjects camee from same backgrounds in the reasearchers' test. I don't know why people get so much aoworked up about this U know. If U can't handle the truth don't go into medicine. my $.02 cents

Your two cents suck butt.

As do your typing skills.
 
tacrum43 said:
Your two cents suck butt.

As do your typing skills.

May be but at least i Have proof of what I say instead of one liners:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1749346,00.html

exceprts from the article;

Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.



Genetic differences in intelligence between the sexes helped to explain why many more men than women won Nobel Prizes or became chess grandmasters, the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.

They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.

When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Women in general are inferior in sciences. Not an attack, just facts. The reasons I also brought this up thefrist place is to say DONNOT TAKE A WOMEN AT PR OR PRINCETON. I hae heard horror storys from friends. My $.02 cents
 
TQ14Burrion said:
May be but at least i Have proof of what I say instead of one liners:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1749346,00.html

exceprts from the article;

Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.



Genetic differences in intelligence between the sexes helped to explain why many more men than women won Nobel Prizes or became chess grandmasters, the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.

They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.

When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Women in general are inferior in sciences. Not an attack, just facts. The reasons I also brought this up thefrist place is to say DONNOT TAKE A WOMEN AT PR OR PRINCETON. I hae heard horror storys from friends. My $.02 cents

On average asians have the biggest brains!!!! 😍

I think this thread is very stupid :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
LT2 said:
On average asians have the biggest brains!!!!

I think this thread is very stupid


This aamay or may not be true. I know on average they score +10 pointss on IQ test for maths. Coinsidence? I think not so. Go to any math course and see who picks up maths faster than anyone else: Asians. My $.02 cent.
 
TQ14Burrion said:
This aamay or may not be true. I know on average they score +10 pointss on IQ test for maths. Coinsidence? I think not so. Go to any math course and see who picks up maths faster than anyone else: Asians. My $.02 cent.


so what is this a total of a nice shiny dime so far from you?

:laugh:
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Women in general are inferior in sciences. Not an attack, just facts. The reasons I also brought this up thefrist place is to say DONNOT TAKE A WOMEN AT PR OR PRINCETON. I hae heard horror storys from friends. My $.02 cents

You can have your two cents back. I had a male Kaplan instructor, and he was the most incompetent person I've dealt with in a long time. I switched sections to a female instructor, and I got a lot more out of it.

The key fault in your logic is your failure to consider your own phrasing; that is, you should look carefully at the word "general." First of all, generalizing along lines of sex won't get you very far in a self-selecting and specialized population such as Kaplan instructors. Second, as my personal experience shows, "general" trends often do not reflect specific reality. Are you saying I should have stayed in my first Kaplan class simply because the instructor was born with a Y chromosome?

Also, what is the relationship between IQ and the ability to teach an MCAT prep course? What is the relationship between "hard science" and the science on the MCAT? The scope of modern scientific research *far* exceeds the science tested on the MCAT, and if you think that you have to be a genius in order to teach me that KE = 1/2mv^2, you are mistaken, my friend. (By the way, my male Kaplan instructor couldn't distinguish KE from PE. But I should believe him because men - in general - are smarter and thus more knowledgeable about everything, correct?)

I also challenge you to show me that the one's "intelligence" as measured with an IQ test directly correlates with one's ability to teach material well. Do interpersonal skills and the ability to articulate one's thoughts well directly correlate with IQs? How many really smart but really awkward people can you think of right now? Have you ever had a brilliant professor who was wonderful at research but horrible at teaching science to students?

You claim that you don't mean to "attack," but until you think out your argument to a greater depth, your generalizations and sterotypes are nothing but an attack on women teachers. In order to back up a claim such as the one that you're making, you need a lot more than data showing that men on average have an IQ of 5 pts higher. Make your "proof" relevant to your argument/claim. Until then, no one has any obligation to take you seriously.
 
I took the MCAT some years back (1999 or so) and ended up getting a 40. I honesty credit my score to Princeton Review. The materials were just awesome. When I took my test, it was as if the actual test had been lifted straight from the PR materials. I was so shocked, in fact, that I went back to talk to some of my old instructors who told me that it wasn't a coincidence that I saw so much overlap. At that time (I don't know if this has changed), a new MCAT was not written every year. Basically, there was a pool of questions from which the different versions of the test were drawn. PR hired people to "tap" the q bank and based their materials on this information.

I don't normally view this forum, but I happened to catch this title, and I would without a doubt recommend PR over Kaplan. I saw the Kaplan material at that time, and it did not compare to PR.

As a note, if you are a highly motivated student who expects to score high 30s, the classes can be pretty worthless. They usually cover the most basic material. In this instance, I would recommend just getting the books. It saves a lot of time and money.

By the way, having almost completed med school and taken the USMLEs, I still maintain that the MCAT was the most important test I ever took. Good luck!
 
Do you guys know anything about the big PR book (kind of like the Kaplan Comprehensive review) that can be purchased w/out taking the course? How does it stack up with the other home study materials?
 
TQ14Burrion said:
This aamay or may not be true. I know on average they score +10 pointss on IQ test for maths. Coinsidence? I think not so. Go to any math course and see who picks up maths faster than anyone else: Asians. My $.02 cent.
The fact that you're still mispelling "coinsidence" after being corrected is more evidence of your stupidity. As far as men being more intelligent on average, that's a subject of some debate. IQ tests are somewhat subjective especially at the very high and very low ends of the scale. However, the general consensus I've heard is that men and women score about the same on average, but there is a greater standard deviation meaning that there are more men far above and far below the average. There are more men in science, partly because of differences in natural aptitude, partly because of differences in priorities (family, kids, etc.) But there also more men in mental institutions, trust someone who has worked at a couple...
 
mashce said:
The fact that you're still mispelling "coinsidence" after being corrected is more evidence of your stupidity. As far as men being more intelligent on average, that's a subject of some debate. IQ tests are somewhat subjective especially at the very high and very low ends of the scale. However, the general consensus I've heard is that men and women score about the same on average, but there is a greater standard deviation meaning that there are more men far above and far below the average. There are more men in science, partly because of differences in natural aptitude, partly because of differences in priorities (family, kids, etc.) But there also more men in mental institutions, trust someone who has worked at a couple...

Men and woman aren't scoring the asame on averages. According to UK study men are +5 pts. on average in IQs. +5 pts. = Very Big Differecne. But we can't stop there. As IQ approcahes 145 the differences beceomes more disparate. Women cannot do maths as welll usually unless they have a lot of help or work so hard that with practice they get drilled on the subjects. But innate intlligence is different. They're just not as smart as men. Unlesssomeone comes up with evicdence otherwise. Until now that's been no no. More men inmental instituties I agree to be true. But fair tradeoff. I'd' rather have smarts and have more riskier chance of being asylumed than less smart and less riskier chance of no asylum. Same way being male I'm prone to be more aggresive. I get much more physicall strength for exchange of that aggressiveness. Very fair trade. Kaplan teachers being usually male is good. Women shoudl be out of science unless qualified. That is 1:5 chance, as proven by studies. I studiy with girls and they are usually slower, no offense. Just Common sense. My $.02 cents :laugh:
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Men and woman aren't scoring the asame on averages. According to UK study men are +5 pts. on average in IQs. +5 pts. = Very Big Differecne. But we can't stop there. As IQ approcahes 145 the differences beceomes more disparate. Women cannot do maths as welll usually unless they have a lot of help or work so hard that with practice they get drilled on the subjects. But innate intlligence is different. They're just not as smart as men. Unlesssomeone comes up with evicdence otherwise. Until now that's been no no. More men inmental instituties I agree to be true. But fair tradeoff. I'd' rather have smarts and have more riskier chance of being asylumed than less smart and less riskier chance of no asylum. Same way being male I'm prone to be more aggresive. I get much more physicall strength for exchange of that aggressiveness. Very fair trade. Kaplan teachers being usually male is good. Women shoudl be out of science unless qualified. That is 1:5 chance, as proven by studies. I studiy with girls and they are usually slower, no offense. Just Common sense. My $.02 cents :laugh:

The fact that your short post is riddled with atrocious spelling and grammar errors (i.e. Differecne, asame, woman vs. women, women can't do math"s", intilligence, instituties, studiy, etc, etc, etc...) brought to mind the fact that the IQ test seems heavily weighed to towards mathetmatical skills, and not language and communication skills, which are a crucial skill if you want to become a doctor. And who says the IQ is *the* way to measure intelligence? There are multiple intelligences and multiple ways of measuring intelligence... the IQ test just measures one construct. If I were you, I'd stop worrying about mathematical intelligence and IQ and start working on social intelligence and spelling skills.
If you want to go into research and stay in the lab and not directly communicate with patients, knock yourself out. But looking at your spelling and grammar mistakes for everyday words, God help us all if you have to write a prescription. So, go take the benzodiazepine of your choice and chill 😀
And you can have your $.02 back, it definately sucks butt.
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Men and woman aren't scoring the asame on averages. According to UK study men are +5 pts. on average in IQs. +5 pts. = Very Big Differecne. But we can't stop there. As IQ approcahes 145 the differences beceomes more disparate. Women cannot do maths as welll usually unless they have a lot of help or work so hard that with practice they get drilled on the subjects. But innate intlligence is different. They're just not as smart as men. Unlesssomeone comes up with evicdence otherwise. Until now that's been no no. More men inmental instituties I agree to be true. But fair tradeoff. I'd' rather have smarts and have more riskier chance of being asylumed than less smart and less riskier chance of no asylum. Same way being male I'm prone to be more aggresive. I get much more physicall strength for exchange of that aggressiveness. Very fair trade. Kaplan teachers being usually male is good. Women shoudl be out of science unless qualified. That is 1:5 chance, as proven by studies. I studiy with girls and they are usually slower, no offense. Just Common sense. My $.02 cents :laugh:

And sometimes I read posts made by men, and they demonstrate extremely poor mechanics. I still inquire, though, what is your point? You still haven't shown a link between "doing well in the sciences" and this IQ score study that you keep referencing. You also haven't shown why this one study should be broadened in scope to apply to MCAT instruction, of all things.

Also, please demonstrate that "inherent" intelligence measured by an IQ test is only genetic. That is, I'd like for you to show proof that upbringing and societal pressures cannot overwhelm any type of "hardwired" difference in aptitude. If a girl is brought up with people (such as you) telling her that she is just "inherently stupider" than boys, what do you think the net result is? Perhaps it's a lack of confidence that results in lower representation in the sciences. Also, if one simply applies the "men are smarter than women" rule to every woman, then we would stop providing intellectual stimulation to girls altogether if we wanted the most bang for our buck. I hope that you've heard of scientists such as Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie.
 
thesmartazz said:
I hope that you've heard of scientists such as Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie.

That'ss my point. 2 scientists. That's all you can name. I can name 500000000000000000000000000000000 male scientests for every 1 woman scientest. My opinion: don't be fooled by propaganda. Stay your course else you want to study with dimwits. Do you want me to post a gazilllion moree 'studies' or have I made the pooint, which is so bovious and valid yet people choose to ignore it. Beats me why. My $.02 cents.
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Don;t want to follow my arguement so you resort to personal attacks? Tsk tsk. Shame on you fella.

It wasn't a personal attack; it was an inquiry as to whether you were joking just to get everyone riled up...
 
It wasn't a personal attack; it was an inquiry as to whether you were joking just to get everyone riled up...

Ah yes but that's prescisely my point. WHY does it rile everyone up so much that tdifferences exist between sexes or races? Diferrences exist and past 20 years greats pains have taken to ensure thesse difference are not mentioned. Infact to ignore them great pains bhave been taken. WHY so muchh insecurity about a common sense subject? Truth is treuth. If hurts you then don't g ointo science. because science e is about truths, not what he/she wants something to be turning out because of a capricious whim.
 
I just went back and looked over your previous posts and you said someplace that you were from Chile. Some whites think that Hispanics are less intelligent than whites, and IQ scores have shown that as well. Does that offend you? What if I said that foreigners with poor English didn't belong in US medical schools? Would you get riled up? The fact is that there are differences between races and genders. There are physical reasons why sprinters and basketball players tend to be black. But a lot of it is stereotypes. On a somewhat subjective test like an IQ exam it's not surprising that there would be a difference of five points between men and women just from random error. Depending on the size of the sample taken, five points may be well within the standard deviation. Also, if the people administering the test were mainly men or simply people who believed that men have higher IQs their personal opinions could have affected the distribution.
 
mashce said:
I just went back and looked over your previous posts and you said someplace that you were from Chile. Some whites think that Hispanics are less intelligent than whites, and IQ scores have shown that as well. Does that offend you? What if I said that foreigners with poor English didn't belong in US medical schools? Would you get riled up? The fact is that there are differences between races and genders. There are physical reasons why sprinters and basketball players tend to be black. But a lot of it is stereotypes. On a somewhat subjective test like an IQ exam it's not surprising that there would be a difference of five points between men and women just from random error. Depending on the size of the sample taken, five points may be well within the standard deviation. Also, if the people administering the test were mainly men or simply people who believed that men have higher IQs their personal opinions could have affected the distribution.

Great point. If TQ14Burrion wants to see an extensive study on intellectual aptitude along racial lines, he should look at Charles Murray's Bell Curve. First of all, a large body of research has been generated to refute Murray's findings, but in the context of this thread, Burrion may find this interesting. Murray concluded from his studies that different races were inherently more intelligent than others on average. He found that Asians possessed the most aptitude for learning, followed by whites; blacks and latino/as, according to Murray, possess the least mental aptitude.

So the moral of the story is: If you are going to discount women in a matter-of-fact fashion due to one study that shows that men and women differ on average by 5 IQ points, then you follow the same logic that would allow the discounting of entire races. If whites and Asians are indeed the most "intelligent" (whatever that means), then why allow other races to seek high-level positions at all? Why bother to educate children from underrepresented backgrounds? Why not limit education to only Asians and whites? Would that increase the quality and productivity of education around the world?

As you hopefully agree, it's inane to use broad generalizations along any one characteristic to immediately discount the intelligence of any person. I can name more than just two female scientists, my friend. I just named two prominent ones that I hoped that you would know. Here are just a couple of others whom I've had the pleasure of meeting/learning from in the past 2 years: Meg Urry at the Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics; Joan Steitz, a Howard Hughes MI investigator who for all intents and purposes discovered gene splicing; Angelique Bordey, my personal PI who researches neurophysiology of glial cells. The list can go on and on.

People don't get riled up about difference between sexes alone. It's obvious to see that men have testes and women have ovaries, and to deny such obvious facts would be pointless. However, making a claim as broad as "women shouldn't go into the sciences" requires more proof than one IQ test (with no direct relevance to such a pompous claim) or refrences to the limited experiences of one pre-med student (I am citing your "girls are just slower when I study with them ROFLMAO" comment). Until you gain enough wisdom and experience to make such an assertion, don't bother. I know that I'm far from this point (if I ever get there), and I thus do not make such sweeping generalizations.

This will be my last post on this thread since I should be writing a paper. But yes, TQ14Burrion. Science is about truths. Go read a book.
 
I just went back and looked over your previous posts and you said someplace that you were from Chile. Some whites think that Hispanics are less intelligent than whites, and IQ scores have shown that as well. Does that offend you? What if I said that foreigners with poor English didn't belong in US medical schools? Would you get riled up?

It would yes make me uneasy about whites thinking they are better at something. Will I go aroungs complaining about it like women do? Only the truely weaker complain about biaas where it doesn't existes. Known fact is that women has complained and complained about biases in medicine in past 20 years. Many med schools take woman on purpose. Why is this bad? Well if woman is on average lower IQ than man, she not do as well. But medical schools will take her even if her scores is lower. That isn't fair only It's injust in any part of the world. A balance must be brought back. Also I've notice that many males have become wimps the last 10 years. Just be aweeare of propaganda and how you are being conditioned my friends. My $.02 cents.
 
TQ14Burrion said:
It would yes make me uneasy about whites thinking they are better at something.
If you think IQ tests are reliable then, we aren't just thinking it- it's verified
Will I go aroungs complaining about it like women do? Only the truely weaker complain about biaas where it doesn't existes. How do you know the bias doesn't exist?
Known fact is that women has complained and complained about biases in medicine in past 20 years.
Blacks in this country complained about bias for more than twenty years. It could be that they're all just whiners, but I think it's more likely that there was a tad bit of bias against them. Many med schools take woman on purpose. Why is this bad? Well if woman is on average lower IQ than man, she not do as well. But medical schools will take her even if her scores is lower.
Where are you getting this from? As far as I know there isn't much of an advantage to being a female applicant.
That isn't fair only It's injust in any part of the world. A balance must be brought back. Also I've notice that many males have become wimps the last 10 years. Just be aweeare of propaganda and how you are being conditioned my friends. My $.02 cents.
That's my .02 cents
 
It is kind of funny that people are willing to assume that all URMs are dumb but, when it comes to women people get so defensive…
 
catalystman said:
It is kind of funny that people are willing to assume that all URMs are dumb but, when it comes to women people get so defensive…
Not all people are willing to make that assumption. If you get on the pre-allo forum and post a thread entitled "blacks are dumb" you'd get some pretty defensive replies...
 
Not taking sides in this debate, but I happened to come across this article which mentions some of the statistics that one of the posters has brought up...

A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.

Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.

'Widening gap'

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.

"But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications," he said.

"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."

The academics used a test which is said to measure "general cognitive ability" - spatial and verbal ability.

As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.

There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Nobel prize-winners

Dr Irwing told The Times the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like".

The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".

His co-author Richard Lynn's previous work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race has proved controversial.

Prof Lynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, has argued that people of east Asian origin have higher IQs on average than Europeans, or that those from sub-Saharan Africa have lower IQs than African Americans.

Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.

Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.

Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.
 
RonaldColeman said:
Not taking sides in this debate, but I happened to come across this article which mentions some of the statistics that one of the posters has brought up...

A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.

Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.

'Widening gap'

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.

"But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications," he said.

"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."

The academics used a test which is said to measure "general cognitive ability" - spatial and verbal ability.

As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.

There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Nobel prize-winners

Dr Irwing told The Times the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like".

The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".

His co-author Richard Lynn's previous work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race has proved controversial.

Prof Lynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, has argued that people of east Asian origin have higher IQs on average than Europeans, or that those from sub-Saharan Africa have lower IQs than African Americans.

Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.

Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.

Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.

IQ test are stupid. IQ tests are directly proportional to a nations wealth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations

indians who are so well respected in america have a lower IQ than African-Americans on average....also within the white race jews average 115 and the irish average 95...
 
catalystman said:
IQ test are stupid. IQ tests are directly proportional to a nations wealth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations

indians who are so well respected in america have a lower IQ than African-Americans on average....also within the white race jews average 115 and the irish average 95...

Or you could say that a nations wealth is directly proportional to its IQ tests...

A lot of people trash The Bell Curve, but the truth is most of these people haven't read the book. Similarly, the evidence in The Bell Curve has not been thoroughly debunked as one poster mentioned. Most people who oppose the findings in the book haven't read the book; their opposition to it's findings are grounded in emotion: "well, the book is racist therefore it can't be true." Contrary to what people have been led to believe, however, The Bell Curve is NOT a book about race and IQ. That happens to be 1 chapter in the book. I used to think the same thing about the book until I was challenged (surprisingly) by a very liberal professor to read it. Forget about the chapter on race--there are actually some very interesting points made about the role of IQ in societal heirarchy, income, etc. It's actually too bad that they included the chapter on race because it detracts from what is actually a pretty darn good study of other aspects of IQ testing.
 
catalystman said:
IQ test are stupid. IQ tests are directly proportional to a nations wealth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations

indians who are so well respected in america have a lower IQ than African-Americans on average....also within the white race jews average 115 and the irish average 95...

IQ tests proved by bell curve over and over. The proof has been there for many years people choose to ignore it. Agahin this is another feministic tendcency to make everyone equal. In essence trying to make everoyone into robots. That is the reason studyies that reveal the truth often are hidden from public. Here is site good about this kindof brainwashing ----

http://www.savethemales.ca/
 
~CDN Pre-med~ said:
Back to the original question....TPR or Kaplan?

Either one are good as long as no women teaching. Overal I must say Princeton has had better user satisfaction rating from tpeople I know of.

🙂
 
TQ14Burrion said:
Either one are good as long as no women teaching. Overal I must say Princeton has had better user satisfaction rating from tpeople I know of.

🙂

My friend, you are an absolute *****. I don't care if absolutely every single thing you have said about sex and IQ is true, the bottom line is you won't survive for one day in medical school if you treat your fellow female medical students (who currently make up the majority of medical applicants), and more importantly, your female professors and attendings as if they are idiots because statistically speaking, their IQs are five points lower on average. Medicine is based on science, yes, but once you get to the wards, if you can't get your patients to trust you and open up to you by having good language and communication skills, you will be crushed on your evals and grades. More importantly, all that science you know will be absolutely wasted if you can't figure out what's wrong with the patient because they won't talk to you. No one cares if you can do the "hard science" you keep ranting about. Medicine is pretty basic level biology--anyone with an mildly above average IQ can easily master the science if they put in the effort.

As a woman who made a 1590 on the SAT, a 36R on my MCAT, and recently a 252 on Step I of the USMLE, and also as a woman who has taught organic chemistry for Princeton Review and has received higher than average teacher ratings from student feedback---I honestly recommend TPR for the MCAT. It's just better organized and more systematic than Kaplan. (When you get around to taking the boards, Kaplan is better, but first things first, take Princeton for the MCAT).
 
are u really that ignorant? because i've taken the TPR course and the male bio teacher (in med school btw) screwed up simple concepts such as the differences between purines and pyrimidines..and even got the base names wrong. Whereas the female g. chem intructor was amazing and i'm not strong in this area but she made everything seem extremely easy.

thats my 2 cents....do with it what you please.

TQ14Burrion said:
Either one are good as long as no women teaching. Overal I must say Princeton has had better user satisfaction rating from tpeople I know of.

🙂
 
Top