Luck seems to have a real impart on MCAT success

[FranceLies]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There are just so many topics to cover and master if you get a couple of passages in BS or PS that you know really well then you are a little bit ahead of the person who maybe gets two passages that really kick their butt. I dont believe that the exam really weeds out the best people because it has too much luck. The most extreme issue is that some people get PS sections that are all mostly physics or all mostly chemistry. If you get the test that exploits your weakness versus getting the test that shows your strenght you are in trouble versus the person who gets a test that is good for them.

 

[solitude]

There are just so many topics to cover and master if you get a couple of passages in BS or PS that you know really well then you are a little bit ahead of the person who maybe gets two passages that really kick their butt. I dont believe that the exam really weeds out the best people because it has too much luck. The most extreme issue is that some people get PS sections that are all mostly physics or all mostly chemistry. If you get the test that exploits your weakness versus getting the test that shows your strenght you are in trouble versus the person who gets a test that is good for them.

I absolutely agree. The range on my practice test scores was 9 points. Even on the AAMC's alone, I had a range of 7 points.

 

[FranceLies]

I absolutely agree. The range on my practice test scores was 9 points. Even on the AAMC's alone, I had a range of 7 points.

I have also had widely ranging exam scores. Not a good test.

 

[solitude]

I have also had widely ranging exam scores. Not a good test.

Well, it's not like this is the only test that can be highly variable. Whenever missing only one or two questions can significantly change your score, scores will tend to be highly variable. This was the case for the SAT and ACT in the 1500-1600 and 33-36 ranges.

 

[FranceLies]

Well, it's not like this is the only test that can be highly variable. Whenever missing only one or two questions can significantly change your score, scores will tend to be highly variable. This was the case for the SAT and ACT in the 1500-1600 and 33-36 ranges.

I have scored anywhere from an 8-12 on the VS. I dont seem to be doing anything different.

If I get mostly physics on a PS I do great but seem to get nailed if I have a lot of chem mixed into the exam. You can say it is my own fault but really on test day I may or may not get an exam with or without a lot of physics. It matters.

The amount of o-chem is also highyl variable. I know people who have had ONE to THREE o-chem passages. I am great at o-chem (fav class) so I would kick ass on o-chem but I am not as good at other topics. Too much variablity to be a good test.

 

[Kikaku21]

Well, it's not like this is the only test that can be highly variable. Whenever missing only one or two questions can significantly change your score, scores will tend to be highly variable. This was the case for the SAT and ACT in the 1500-1600 and 33-36 ranges.

This is all true. But it is worth noting that the more you understand the science, the tighter your score range should get. I had about a 3 point range by the time I had wrapped it all up. Also, my lower scores tended to result less from not knowing facts, and more from understanding what was asked and reading carefully. Which is why I am afraid of 2 months from now.

😱

 

[spicedmanna]

There are just so many topics to cover and master if you get a couple of passages in BS or PS that you know really well then you are a little bit ahead of the person who maybe gets two passages that really kick their butt. I dont believe that the exam really weeds out the best people because it has too much luck. The most extreme issue is that some people get PS sections that are all mostly physics or all mostly chemistry. If you get the test that exploits your weakness versus getting the test that shows your strenght you are in trouble versus the person who gets a test that is good for them.

I agree completely. I got the short straw with Form CR, which seemed to emphasize just the the right material for me to not do well. I'm sure I could have figured it all out with more time. But that's the issue isn't it? Oh well. I guess that speaks to leaving no stone unturned when preparing for the real test. I naively expected a much more balanced test. Now I know better. I just hope it isn't a fatal mistake.

On the other hand, from what I gather from other posts on this board, this test in general seemed more difficult than others. Perhaps it'll all balance out through the mysterious curving procedure that is implemented by AAMC.

Not much to do, but wait and see. And learn from my mistakes, should I need to retake it.

 

[solitude]

This is all true. But it is worth noting that the more you understand the science, the tighter your score range should get. I had about a 3 point range by the time I had wrapped it all up. Also, my lower scores tended to result less from not knowing facts, and more from understanding what was asked and reading carefully. Which is why I am afraid of 2 months from now.

😱

Well I think this depends. When you get up in the 12-15 range, it's not really about how well you know the science, it's about how well you know random facts that might show up on the exam, and how well you guess on the 5-10 questions per section that you are not 100% sure on. My practice score range was 34-43, although most scores fell from 36-41. I don't think it would be accurate to argue that someone whose score range was a very tight 27-30 knows the science better.

 

[gujuDoc]

This is all true. But it is worth noting that the more you understand the science, the tighter your score range should get. I had about a 3 point range by the time I had wrapped it all up. Also, my lower scores tended to result less from not knowing facts, and more from understanding what was asked and reading carefully. Which is why I am afraid of 2 months from now.

😱

Exactly. To the OP: If you are weak in an area then you should have practiced like crazy in that area because when you go in you should be able to understand ALL of the material equally.

 

[Kikaku21]

Well I think this depends. When you get up in the 12-15 range, it's not really about how well you know the science, it's about how well you know random facts that might show up on the exam, and how well you guess on the 5-10 questions per section that you are not 100% sure on. My practice score range was 34-43, although most scores fell from 36-41. I don't think it would be accurate to argue that someone whose score range was a very tight 27-30 knows the science better.

It depends. I noticed that most of the missed questions for me were just errors in reading and understanding what was being asked. I would also correlate the "random" questions you are talking about to how well the science is known. If you REALLY know your stuff, the random question become less random. As with anything, I would argue that there are diminishing returns, and that learning all of the extra details may only be the difference between a 12 and a 13 on the 5th blue moon of the 2nd soltice.

 

[solitude]

It depends. I noticed that most of the missed questions for me were just errors in reading and understanding what was being asked. I would also correlate the "random" questions you are talking about to how well the science is known. If you REALLY know your stuff, the random question become less random. As with anything, I would argue that there are diminishing returns, and that learning all of the extra details may only be the difference between a 12 and a 13 on the 5th blue moon of the 2nd soltice.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I think correctly answering the "random" questions, at least for me, was simply a matter of not misunderstanding the question (as you noted), but also a matter of outside knowledge that is purportedly not required for the MCAT. I do agree that if you "REALLY know your stuff, the random question becomes less random", but I think the "stuff" you "REALLY" have to know does somewhat depend on luck because you have no idea which extraneous information you must know. This is sort of a convoluted post, so I apologize.

 

[The Kahuna]

I agree completely. I got the short straw with Form CR, which seemed to emphasize just the the right material for me to not do well. I'm sure I could have figured it all out with more time. But that's the issue isn't it? Oh well. I guess that speaks to leaving no stone unturned when preparing for the real test. I naively expected a much more balanced test. Now I know better. I just hope it isn't a fatal mistake.

On the other hand, from what I gather from other posts on this board, this test in general seemed more difficult than others. Perhaps it'll all balance out through the mysterious curving procedure that is implemented by AAMC.

Not much to do, but wait and see. And learn from my mistakes, should I need to retake it.

I had CR too, and I'm with you. We were not lucky come test day! The test had ample opportunity to exploit my major weakness: physics.

 

[austinap]

Once you start getting relatively high scores (mid-high 30's), the randomness really starts to increase your score range as well. If you're in the 13-15 range for a given section, there's a good chance that your final score will depend either on what random facts you happened to know (i.e., upper level physics or chem not supposed to be necessary) or on whether or not you picked correctly on those two that you guessed between two answers on. If you were in this range for all of your tests, randomly guessing wrong on 6 questions could be the same as getting 6 total points lower.

I think the mid-range scores are fairly accurate and more consistent simply because it takes a larger number of questions to distinguish between two scores. There's still variability, and there's still some luck in not getting the few areas that you're not as sharp on though. I guess it is pretty much impossible to come up with a test that can perfectly test your knowledge.

 

[notdeadyet]

But it is worth noting that the more you understand the science, the tighter your score range should get. I had about a 3 point range by the time I had wrapped it all up.

Kikaku's absolutely right. This does not mean that you need to be in the 13-14 range for this to be accurate. Whatever your level of ability is, the more command you have over the material, the more consistent your score will be.

Folks talk about getting topics "they don't understand well" and this is part of the problem. You should be getting tough passages and tough questions, but if you don't understand a concept well, you obviously didn't hit it hard enough during practice. There are some exceptions, like some of the genetics that isn't covered in the prep books, but they are far and few between.

 

[gujuDoc]

Kikaku's absolutely right. This does not mean that you need to be in the 13-14 range for this to be accurate. Whatever your level of ability is, the more command you have over the material, the more consistent your score will be.

Folks talk about getting topics "they don't understand well" and this is part of the problem. You should be getting tough passages and tough questions, but if you don't understand a concept well, you obviously didn't hit it hard enough during practice. There are some exceptions, like some of the genetics that isn't covered in the prep books, but they are far and few between.

See that's part of the problem though. People rely on the review books as being the ONLY resource to look up material. If you look at the topics list above you'll see there are several things on there that aren't covered by some review courses such as acetoacetic ester synthesis which was covered by EK but not by TPR or Kaplan and was on the topic list of necessary information. Then even within courses people often try to say not to know certain things which is so not the attitude to go in with. You should know everything important and practice it til you know it cold.

 

[gujuDoc]

I also am in support of using actual textbooks to review material of topics not covered in the textbooks if those topics happen to come on a practice test because even though its an off chance you can never know too much while you certainly can know too little.

I remember when Shrike used to post on here and his advice was probably some of the best. He also agreed that at his time teaching for TPR ( he taught quite a few years) he saw that both with him and others, those who really knew the material and not just what was in review books but retained from classes the material were the ones that did best in the sciences.

 

[Div_MD2B]

I had CR too, and I'm with you. We were not lucky come test day! The test had ample opportunity to exploit my major weakness: physics.

me too guys...i had this form too...and i hate physics and thats what the entire physical science section focused on! arghh! so frustrated! so scared!

 

[notdeadyet]

You should know everything important and practice it til you know it cold.

Best advice yet. And once you're done with that, get to know the lesser stuff cold too. I personally think it's those that go in rock solid on the lesser stuff that are the ones getting the 12's and 13 (disclosure: I'm in no way part of that club).

 

[nbandy13]

There is no such thing as luck, IMO.

 

[MediaMan]

A certain measure of the test might be luck and how well you know the topics that happen to show up on test day. However, more than the luck is how focused you are and how well you're able to concentrate on test day. Having a straight head and paying more attention to everything come test day on the adrenaline rush might make you feel like you're more or less lucky than you were during practice.

 

[gujuDoc]

A certain measure of the test might be luck and how well you know the topics that happen to show up on test day. However, more than the luck is how focused you are and how well you're able to concentrate on test day. Having a straight head and paying more attention to everything come test day on the adrenaline rush might make you feel like you're more or less lucky than you were during practice.

I completely agree that FOCUS is the most important factor and confidence once you've learned the material.

 

[kevster2001]

I think there is a certain measure of luck involved. hard work gets you into a score range and luck decides which score you get. How strong you are in each of the subjects determine how large that range is. Atleast thats how I saw it.

 

[gujuDoc]

Do you know when one doesn't have to rely on luck? KNOW EVERYTHING! 😀

Trueeeeeeeeeeeeeeee listen to bruin. This is what it really comes down to with the MCAT. To do well try to know everything to the best of your ability.

 

[QofQuimica]

Trueeeeeeeeeeeeeeee listen to bruin. This is what it really comes down to with the MCAT. To do well try to know everything to the best of your ability.

I believe that we make our own luck. No one springs from the womb and scores 35+ on the MCAT. Sorry, but it takes a heck of a lot of hard work to do that. And I would guess that a lot of people who score in that range and claim that they didn't study much did a lot more than they care to admit or remember....you don't learn two years' worth of science background for the first time two months before the test, either. 😉

 

[Anastasis]

I believe that we make our own luck. No one springs from the womb and scores 35+ on the MCAT. Sorry, but it takes a heck of a lot of hard work to do that. And I would guess that a lot of people who score in that range and claim that they didn't study much did a lot more than they care to admit or remember....you don't learn two years' worth of science background for the first time two months before the test, either. 😉

I don't think I studied as much as my score would make you think. I also think I got EXTREMELY lucky to have a form which played to all my strengths and none of my weaknesses (do you remember having to beat electrochemistry through my thick skull? )

 

[gujuDoc]

I believe that we make our own luck. No one springs from the womb and scores 35+ on the MCAT. Sorry, but it takes a heck of a lot of hard work to do that. And I would guess that a lot of people who score in that range and claim that they didn't study much did a lot more than they care to admit or remember....you don't learn two years' worth of science background for the first time two months before the test, either. 😉

Yes I agree with this. most who didn't study a lot for the MCAT and did well did so because they retained the material in their long term memory when they took the original prereq courses and learned the material the first time around. The problem with most people is that they retain the material in their short term memory or don't always learn the material well enough to comprehend it on a conceptual level. I know that was the case for me with physics for sure.

This is the reason I think most people need a lot of time to study because they need to relearn the material again since they've forgotten most of it from when they took the prereqs.

 

[GuzzyRon]

There is no such thing as luck, IMO.

If so, can you honestly declare that you earned or deserved every single thing that has come your way?

 

[QofQuimica]

I don't think I studied as much as my score would make you think. I also think I got EXTREMELY lucky to have a form which played to all my strengths and none of my weaknesses (do you remember having to beat electrochemistry through my thick skull? )

If I recall correctly, you have a pretty kick-a** GPA in a difficult major. You didn't get THAT by sheer luck, I'd guess, so presumably you've learned something along the way. 🙂

I think Guju has it right. Either you picked up the material all along during college, or you picked it up while you were studying for the MCAT itself. You seem to suggest that it was the former rather than the latter. But that doesn't change the fact that at some point, you DID pick it up. Including electrochem. 😉

 

[Anastasis]

If I recall correctly, you have a pretty kick-a** GPA in a difficult major. You didn't get THAT by sheer luck, I'd guess, so presumably you've learned something along the way. 🙂

I think Guju has it right. Either you picked up the material all along during college, or you picked it up while you were studying for the MCAT itself. You seem to suggest that it was the former rather than the latter. But that doesn't change the fact that at some point, you DID pick it up. Including electrochem. 😉

My GPA is crap - in Liberal Arts. Which I personally think is harder for me than Science (4.0 in Science post bacc but 3.5 in ugrad lib arts. )

 

[QofQuimica]

My GPA is crap - in Liberal Arts. Which I personally think is harder for me than Science (4.0 in Science post bacc but 3.5 in ugrad lib arts. )

Ok, I'm thinking of your post-bac. But you're not refuting my point just because you did it in a post-bac. 🙂

 

[nbandy13]

If so, can you honestly declare that you earned or deserved every single thing that has come your way?

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. If you are asking me whether or not I have earned my grades and exam scores, then of course I have...but I assume this isn't your point.

 

[kdburton]

There are just so many topics to cover and master if you get a couple of passages in BS or PS that you know really well then you are a little bit ahead of the person who maybe gets two passages that really kick their butt. I dont believe that the exam really weeds out the best people because it has too much luck. The most extreme issue is that some people get PS sections that are all mostly physics or all mostly chemistry. If you get the test that exploits your weakness versus getting the test that shows your strenght you are in trouble versus the person who gets a test that is good for them.

If you know all of it then you're automatically better off than everyone else who doesn't because you have no weak areas that the test can exploit 🙂