Mcat Retaker---my tips on how I got a 35+

[yerawizardharry]

Hey everyone! I used posts on student doc a lot to help me and guide my studying, and I told myself that if I did well, I would spread the love. I got my score back today, and I got a 40 (14, 13, 13)!!!! So here are some general suggestions/advice I would give for those who want a very good score:

--in terms of practice exams: nothing is as close to the real MCAT as the AAMC ones, but the real one WILL BE HARDER. I redid the AAMC ones over and over again, which I think was helpful, despite what other people have said. I redid them, not because I thought they would be accurate score predictors, but to get used to the type of questions AAMC asks and the kind of thinking that it requires.

--other good practice exams: Gold Standard and the first few Princeton Review Exams. Kaplan inflates your score like nobody's business. Beware that every practice exam is really testing you on the material that their course teaches, which is not 100 percent correlated with what will actually be on the MCAT.

--I used PR review materials. The Hyperlearning Science Workbook was very useful, to do some questions before I started taking the practice exams. You can buy it on Amazon, it doesn't really matter what year or edition it is.

--For verbal: I used Exam Krackers 101. I think the most important of verbal is to understand the tone of the passage, the author's argument and HOW the author makes the argument. To do that, I think it's better to just read it like you would read a good book, just trying to understand for comprehension. I DID NOT find it helpful to passage map--that breaks up the flow of the passage, and harder to understand tone.

That's all for now. If you have any questions, PLEASE ASK. I found everyone's advice here so helpful, and I would love to be able to help out others.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[studentdoctor08]

Do you have any thoughts on Berkeley Review? I'm studying for another retake in May and have decided to switch my practice material from Kaplan

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Hey everyone! I used posts on student doc a lot to help me and guide my studying, and I told myself that if I did well, I would spread the love. I got my score back today, and I got a 40 (14, 13, 13)!!!! So here are some general suggestions/advice I would give for those who want a very good score:

--in terms of practice exams: nothing is as close to the real MCAT as the AAMC ones, but the real one WILL BE HARDER. I redid the AAMC ones over and over again, which I think was helpful, despite what other people have said. I redid them, not because I thought they would be accurate score predictors, but to get used to the type of questions AAMC asks and the kind of thinking that it requires.

--other good practice exams: Gold Standard and the first few Princeton Review Exams. Kaplan inflates your score like nobody's business. Beware that every practice exam is really testing you on the material that their course teaches, which is not 100 percent correlated with what will actually be on the MCAT.

--I used PR review materials. The Hyperlearning Science Workbook was very useful, to do some questions before I started taking the practice exams. You can buy it on Amazon, it doesn't really matter what year or edition it is.

--For verbal: I used Exam Krackers 101. I think the most important of verbal is to understand the tone of the passage, the author's argument and HOW the author makes the argument. To do that, I think it's better to just read it like you would read a good book, just trying to understand for comprehension. I DID NOT find it helpful to passage map--that breaks up the flow of the passage, and harder to understand tone.

That's all for now. If you have any questions, PLEASE ASK. I found everyone's advice here so helpful, and I would love to be able to help out others.

I find it hard to believe that you scored 40 and yet felt that the test was hard.

 

[jcopper]

do you have any suggestions and what to use for bio? I'm retaking this summer and I felt like my bio prep from my Kaplan course wasn't really helpful- It seemed all experimental...

 

[Status Sciaticus]

I find it hard to believe that you scored 40 and yet felt that the test was hard.

just because he found the test hard doesnt mean he isnt a good test taker or he doesnt know his information... but i do agree that a detailed explanation on how he managed a 40 is warranted.

 

[yerawizardharry]

Like I said, I am a retaker, so I have pretty much been studying for this test since early June. I took it first in September and then again in January. I think the prolonged time of studying, and also going through everything twice, thoroughly, and knowing more about what to expect, really boosted my score.

As for finding it difficult, I think that's something that will vary case by case. I knew I did well on verbal, because it felt good. Physical science also felt pretty manageable. Biological science, on the other hand, felt much harder than the AAMC questions, and required a lot more understanding of the passages than simple recall/rote memorization.

I understand that this is the internet and you have no reason to believe me, but I really am being 100 percent honest and I do want to help with questions.

I did not use Berkley Review, but I've heard it's really good. Whatever it is that you use, stick to it and learn it well. Do whatever practice questions they have (which I did with Princeton).

I also had access to Kaplan, and hated it. They wasted my time trying to explain a cell through the metaphor of a city--you all probably know what a cell is, and the organelles. No need to get cute with it. Princeton Review is VERY thorough on details, especially physiology. I really liked PR's level of detail, because even if you won't need to know every digestive enzyme, it will make you feel confident and that is a considerate part of the battle.

 

[cuculici1]

Hey everyone! I used posts on student doc a lot to help me and guide my studying, and I told myself that if I did well, I would spread the love. I got my score back today, and I got a 40 (14, 13, 13)!!!! So here are some general suggestions/advice I would give for those who want a very good score:

--in terms of practice exams: nothing is as close to the real MCAT as the AAMC ones, but the real one WILL BE HARDER. I redid the AAMC ones over and over again, which I think was helpful, despite what other people have said. I redid them, not because I thought they would be accurate score predictors, but to get used to the type of questions AAMC asks and the kind of thinking that it requires.

--other good practice exams: Gold Standard and the first few Princeton Review Exams. Kaplan inflates your score like nobody's business. Beware that every practice exam is really testing you on the material that their course teaches, which is not 100 percent correlated with what will actually be on the MCAT.

--I used PR review materials. The Hyperlearning Science Workbook was very useful, to do some questions before I started taking the practice exams. You can buy it on Amazon, it doesn't really matter what year or edition it is.

--For verbal: I used Exam Krackers 101. I think the most important of verbal is to understand the tone of the passage, the author's argument and HOW the author makes the argument. To do that, I think it's better to just read it like you would read a good book, just trying to understand for comprehension. I DID NOT find it helpful to passage map--that breaks up the flow of the passage, and harder to understand tone.

That's all for now. If you have any questions, PLEASE ASK. I found everyone's advice here so helpful, and I would love to be able to help out others.

How much did your score improve from the first attempt?

 

[cooksgenes]

--For verbal: I used Exam Krackers 101. I think the most important of verbal is to understand the tone of the passage, the author's argument and HOW the author makes the argument. To do that, I think it's better to just read it like you would read a good book, just trying to understand for comprehension. I DID NOT find it helpful to passage map--that breaks up the flow of the passage, and harder to understand tone.

That's all for now. If you have any questions, PLEASE ASK. I found everyone's advice here so helpful, and I would love to be able to help out others.

Did you use all EK 101 the first time you prepared for the test? I used all my EK 101, AAMC, TPR, so now I am a bit scared since nothing would be a real indicator for my retake Well I was averaging 8 on AAMC and on the actual one I got 7. I would be happy with an 8 and would not retake but this damn 7 stinks so much.

 

[yerawizardharry]

I actually voided my test scores the first time, so I obviously have no idea how I did. I felt like I got rocked on the physical science, and neither the bio nor verbal felt good enough (or rather, felt pretty ****ty) to make up for what I thought would not be a good physical science score.

I did not use all of Exam Krackers 101 the first time I prepared, only half; the second time, I finished the book. To be honest, Verbal was the section I was most comfortable with (and it helps that I am majoring in English).

It sucks not having accurate score predictors the second time around....I feel ya on that. I drove myself up the wall trying to figure out if I actually was doing better, or just remembering the test. I don't recommend that strategy obviously, because it's just a waste of time. I guess it's probably just best to study the material, learn the way MCAT tests, and get used to that kind of thinking.

 

[cooksgenes]

I am in a tricky situation right now, as I got 14/15 on PS/BS, respectively. A 7 on VR is like an unwanted child among the Ivies kids to be honest. I guess I am just going to redo the passages and do harder post-game analysis this time...

 

[yerawizardharry]

I am in a tricky situation right now, as I got 14/15 on PS/BS, respectively. A 7 on VR is like an unwanted child among the Ivies kids to be honest. I guess I am just going to redo the passages and do harder post-game analysis this time...

Man, that's rough about your verbal, but your PS/BS section scores are amazing. I'm sorry I couldn't be more help. I've read on here on Student Doc that some people read things like the Economist to help them get used to reading boring and/or dense stuff. I can't personally attest to this, but food for thought, I suppose. Best of luck!!

 

[Shams al Deen]

Ok, here's what I don't get about all this MCAT talk that gets regurgitated on this forum. If the real test "WILL BE HARDER" then why are the average scores for MCAT going UP? It makes no sense to me. I just checked, and in the year 2000, AAMC reports the avg score to be 24.7. Yet in 2012, the avg score is 25.2, there is actually a half-point increase in scores in the last 12 years (its been going up incrementally the 12 years). The practice tests we have (AAMC 3-11) are probably real tests from the late 1990s or maybe even early 2000s and the kids from back then were getting destroyed by their real MCATs even more badly then we are getting killed by the modern MCAT. So my point is that either the curve on the present-day real MCATS are ultra-lenient like KAplans curve, or its just game-day nerves messing with perception. Or, I guess you could say pre-meds were dumber 15 years ago.

EDIT: congrats on the 40 btw

 

[Spinach Dip]

Ok, here's what I don't get about all this MCAT talk that gets regurgitated on this forum. If the real test "WILL BE HARDER" then why are the average scores for MCAT going UP? It makes no sense to me. I just checked, and in the year 2000, AAMC reports the avg score to be 24.7. Yet in 2012, the avg score is 25.2, there is actually a half-point increase in scores in the last 12 years (its been going up incrementally the 12 years). The practice tests we have (AAMC 3-11) are probably real tests from the late 1990s or maybe even early 2000s and the kids from back then were getting destroyed by their real MCATs even more badly then we are getting killed by the modern MCAT. So my point is that either the curve on the present-day real MCATS are ultra-lenient like KAplans curve, or its just game-day nerves messing with perception. Or, I guess you could say pre-meds were dumber 15 years ago.

EDIT: congrats on the 40 btw

Uhhhh..... What?

You mention the mean has increased by 0.5 points over 12 years, and make the conclusion that the current curve is "ultra-lenient"?



My conclusion (and I would need to back this up by actually looking at the numbers, which I don't have time to do now) is that extremely low scores (say, 15 or less) have been decreasing incrementally in number, or increasing incrementally in score (ie, those who got 15 before now get a 16), thus pushing up the mean of the entire population.

I'll have to look over the actual numbers tomorrow, but I don't think a half-point change over twelve years is really that meaningful.

 

[yerawizardharry]

Ok, here's what I don't get about all this MCAT talk that gets regurgitated on this forum. If the real test "WILL BE HARDER" then why are the average scores for MCAT going UP? It makes no sense to me. I just checked, and in the year 2000, AAMC reports the avg score to be 24.7. Yet in 2012, the avg score is 25.2, there is actually a half-point increase in scores in the last 12 years (its been going up incrementally the 12 years). The practice tests we have (AAMC 3-11) are probably real tests from the late 1990s or maybe even early 2000s and the kids from back then were getting destroyed by their real MCATs even more badly then we are getting killed by the modern MCAT. So my point is that either the curve on the present-day real MCATS are ultra-lenient like KAplans curve, or its just game-day nerves messing with perception. Or, I guess you could say pre-meds were dumber 15 years ago.

EDIT: congrats on the 40 btw

I honestly couldn't tell you. But I'm not alone in this opinion; many people told me before, and since, that the real MCAT felt harder than the AAMC practice exams. I don't tell you this to psych you out! It's just how I felt about the exam. It's definitely, at least partly, a perception thing; one month is a long time to mull over all those questions you didn't know, or weren't sure on. I also generally think I did a little worse than I actually do (although there have been glaring exceptions, sadly), which might be a common thing about students.

Also I would say a half point increase in 12 years is not really a huge rise. I have pretty much zero knowledge of statistics, but I wonder if that would count as significant (someone more math-y than me can help me out). If it seems like everyone here on SDN is rockin it, we are not, by any means, a random sample.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I honestly couldn't tell you. But I'm not alone in this opinion; many people told me before, and since, that the real MCAT felt harder than the AAMC practice exams.

Just to add to the actual thread: On the actual MCAT, I thought PS was WAY harder than the practice material, while VR was almost identical to the practice tests, and BS was similar in difficulty, but required a little more thought.

My take-away lesson would be: be ready for anything!

 

[Shams al Deen]

Uhhhh..... What?

You mention the mean has increased by 0.5 points over 12 years, and make the conclusion that the current curve is "ultra-lenient"?





I'll have to look over the actual numbers tomorrow, but I don't think a half-point change over twelve years is really that meaningful.

My point wasn't really that the half-point increase is significant. My point is that we always hear people say the real MCAT was WAAAY harder than any aamc practice exam. I am wondering how that is possible considering that the practice exams are actually old MCATs. And premeds of the past did no better (actually a half-point) worse on those old MCATs (our practice mcats). It doesn't really add up to me, unless of course the modern day MCAT has a more lenient curve. Or, understandably, game-day stress altered perception.

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Just to add to the actual thread: On the actual MCAT, I thought PS was WAY harder than the practice material, while VR was almost identical to the practice tests, and BS was similar in difficulty, but required a little more thought.

My take-away lesson would be: be ready for anything!

Hi there. Conceptually or mathematically (ie. math intensive)?

 

[MedWonk]

Hi there. Conceptually or mathematically (ie. math intensive)?

Mathematically. Conceptually, it was roughly the same as the practice tests. There were a lot PITA calculations, though. I wouldn't say they were difficult so much as they were time-consuming.

My point wasn't really that the half-point increase is significant. My point is that we always hear people say the real MCAT was WAAAY harder than any aamc practice exam. I am wondering how that is possible considering that the practice exams are actually old MCATs. And premeds of the past did no better (actually a half-point) worse on those old MCATs (our practice mcats). It doesn't really add up to me, unless of course the modern day MCAT has a more lenient curve. Or, understandably, game-day stress altered perception.

I didn't think it was way harder. I found it to be similar in difficulty to AAMC 7-11, which are tougher than 3-5. Overall, there weren't any real surprises. I think test-day anxiety gives a lot of people the impression that the difficulty is much greater than it actually is.

 

[Gauss44]

--For verbal: I used Exam Krackers 101. I think the most important of verbal is to understand the tone of the passage, the author's argument and HOW the author makes the argument. To do that, I think it's better to just read it like you would read a good book, just trying to understand for comprehension. I DID NOT find it helpful to passage map--that breaks up the flow of the passage, and harder to understand tone.

That's all for now. If you have any questions, PLEASE ASK. I found everyone's advice here so helpful, and I would love to be able to help out others.

Since you used EK 101 and did really well (congratulations!), I was wondering if you disagreed with some of their answers? If so, was it a lot of them, some of them, a few of them, etc.? I consider you a reliable source of information because you did well on the real thing. And I honestly want to know if I am not getting about 20 questions in the book, or some of them are really a mistake on the author's part. I know there are people on both sides of this, but I am looking for your opinion OP.

Thanks sharing the above info. The rest of it is helpful to me because I have already taken all the AAMC exams and have been thinking about buying TPR.

 

[yerawizardharry]

Since you used EK 101 and did really well (congratulations!), I was wondering if you disagreed with some of their answers? If so, was it a lot of them, some of them, a few of them, etc.? I consider you a reliable source of information because you did well on the real thing. And I honestly want to know if I am not getting about 20 questions in the book, or some of them are really a mistake on the author's part. I know there are people on both sides of this, but I am looking for your opinion OP.

Thanks sharing the above info. The rest of it is helpful to me because I have already taken all the AAMC exams and have been thinking about buying TPR.

Thank you!! Hm, I think in the beginning, after doing the first few tests, I would have definitely agreed with you. I would look at the questions I got wrong, read their answers, and really wanted to argue why my choice was right. Eventually, I would usually come to realize that their choice also made sense. Sometimes, I could see why even though mine was right, their answer was probably better--not always, however.

But near the end, I think I found myself disagreeing less. I wasn't really doing better, score-wise (I only ever got a 10 or 11 in the EK books; on the AAMC practice tests, it ranged from 11-13). But for the last half of the book, their answers did make sense to me. Sometimes they seemed really nit-picky, but I had to acknowledge that mine was wrong.

I don't know if I actually started to learn how to discern between answer choices better, or I just stopped caring as much, and went with what they said.

Also my edition of the book contains actual mistakes By which I mean, the answer key will say "B" but then you read the explanations, and choice C is marked correct there. Sometimes I thought I got something wrong that I was so confident about--only to find that the book had made a mistake, and they did mean my choice after all.

You mentioned getting more practice exams. I found TPR is pretty okay in verbal; I've heard Gold Standard is not so good (I didn't do their VR sections, only BS and PS). One advantage to GS, however, is that you buy tests individually for pretty cheap.

Best of luck!! Sorry for this insanely long post.

 

[Gauss44]

Thank you!! Hm, I think in the beginning, after doing the first few tests, I would have definitely agreed with you. I would look at the questions I got wrong, read their answers, and really wanted to argue why my choice was right. Eventually, I would usually come to realize that their choice also made sense. Sometimes, I could see why even though mine was right, their answer was probably better--not always, however.

But near the end, I think I found myself disagreeing less. I wasn't really doing better, score-wise (I only ever got a 10 or 11 in the EK books; on the AAMC practice tests, it ranged from 11-13). But for the last half of the book, their answers did make sense to me. Sometimes they seemed really nit-picky, but I had to acknowledge that mine was wrong.

I don't know if I actually started to learn how to discern between answer choices better, or I just stopped caring as much, and went with what they said.

Also my edition of the book contains actual mistakes By which I mean, the answer key will say "B" but then you read the explanations, and choice C is marked correct there. Sometimes I thought I got something wrong that I was so confident about--only to find that the book had made a mistake, and they did mean my choice after all.

You mentioned getting more practice exams. I found TPR is pretty okay in verbal; I've heard Gold Standard is not so good (I didn't do their VR sections, only BS and PS). One advantage to GS, however, is that you buy tests individually for pretty cheap.

Best of luck!! Sorry for this insanely long post.

Yeah, I plan to get TPR exams next. I've heard there's 19 of them or something like 9 not including AAMC exams? I think the cheapest way is to pay $600 for tutoring which unlocks all of the online content including exams. Additionally I might buy TBR exams. (I already have Columbia Review , ARCO MCAT, and TPR exams A-D exams not yet taken.) My plan is to wait until I consistently score a 35 on non-AAMC exams, then to take the real thing.

In terms of Verbal Reasoning, it's been a long* road for me. I truly dislike explaining and arguing for my wrong answers - what a waste of time. Ideally, I would get them all correct and move along! I guess the reason I did that is because I thought that explaining myself would make it easier for someone else to spot my mistake. From now on, I think I'm just going to ask other people how they went about getting their answer on vr and leave what I did out of it.

I truly appreciate your responding to me and even including information about exams. Your feedback is important. Coming from someone who did really well on the VR section, it gives an accurate perspective on the practice material. Again, congratulations on your score!

*VR Vent (feel free to ignore): I think it's important for people to know how crummy VR can be. This might lead to gratitude and the realization that non-lazy people can really struggle. VR's really been difficult for me. Reviewing my wrong answers every day for months has mainly resulted in frustration and not in finding errors, I hired (then fired) a VR tutor who wanted start out by teaching grammar for $180 twice a week, and I hear all to often from the answer key and elsewhere that VR is obvious, easy, common sense, etc. I have been spending 3+ hours on VR every day and feel I'm getting nowhere.