Alright so here's my two cents for anybody that's interested. I would completely avoid the NS exams for a number of reasons. The most notable of these being the fact that each section has characteristics that make it HIGHLY unrepresentative of what the AAMC practice test was like. The PS section is roughly 50% physics, usually requiring multi-step calculations, which has proven not to be the case based on the Official Practice test and what I've heard from early test takers. The CARS section is is comprised largely of highly convoluted passages that leave you feeling confused as to what the main idea of the passage is. The Bio Section contain mainly passages that are largely word based instead of interpretation of graphs, and finally the psych section contains countless passages that are 6-8 paragraphs long, as opposed to the 3-5 used by AAMC. The tests will most likely discourage you and prove much less helpful than other resources. I would suggest using AAMC materials (Full Length, Official Guide, Question Packs) as well as the EK Full length exams. A much better alternative to NS.
Did you even take the 1st 3 NextStep full lengths or are you just going based on what you've heard? I have taken NS, EK, Kaplan and TPR full length exams since I started studying back in March. Literally ALL of the practice tests that are NOT the AAMC's 1 and only exam have characteristics that are not aamc like. Only TPR even gives you the exams 1 Q at a time like the aamc. What did you like about the EK exams? Was their science breakdown accurate? Would you even know? Your comments above would imply you do not.
I have spoken with several friends who took the MCAT recently and even one
today who said his exam was heavy on 4C topics, which was the first I'd heard of anyone reporting such heavy testing of that category. The point is we have exactly 1 new AAMC exam, which tells us very little about what favorite topics the future MCAT will test most often or how many Qs will or won't be quantitative. Look back at the older AAMC exams and see how varied the topics and test questions were among the 8 exams that were released. This whole SDN obsession with figure based interpretation, you do realize that only 10% of ALL science questions (skill 4) will test figures and graphs and charts right? That means 5-6 questions per section, 18 total per test? I have had multiple people tell me the mcat they took in April/May had many vanilla, boring experiment or info based passages across the sciences and one friend said only 4 of their psych passages had any figures at all!
Your statements above lead me to believe you have not taken the NextStep full lengths or at least did not bother to check anything when you sought to examine their “authenticity” It took me just 20 minutes to do this.
Chem/Phys
I have reviewed the NS FL 1 and I can tell you there are exactly 14Qs that are physics based. 14/59 = 24%, the EXACT proportion predicted by the AAMC is 25% (15 Qs would be 25.4%). Of those, 8 of them were calculation based. This is pretty much the same as the TPR, and Kaplan exams. Even the EK exams have more calculations than the 1 aamc exam we have. Please check your facts before spouting hyperbole.
Bio/biochem
In the Bio section of FL 1, of the 10 passages, 6 of them had at least 1 figure, 4 of them had 2 or more, and 1 of them had 4 figures. Again, you really should do your homework if you are going to properly review anything and then share your opinion here on SDN. There is too much random noise on the forum; we don't need any more of it.
CARS
I will agree that the NS cars on the full lengths is tougher than the EK and TPS cars. This is prolly the NS exams weakest section in terms of authenticity. 2 and 3 are a not much different, but 4 and 5 are much better. None of the prep companies seem to be quite as AAMC like as I want, but the next Step CARS strategy book is much much better at having a wide variety of passages. I would say Kplan does a a decent job in their FLs for CARS, but not much else. The MCAT itself will be a mix of easy, medium and convoluted passages. They literally test us on identifying the main idea so do you expect it to be easy? I'd rather practice on tougher passages so that the real thing seems easier, which is what I've seen on SDN for those that took Kaplan and NS full lengths and is what I experienced. EK was too different and their explanations sometimes just required blind acceptance. I hope I find myself similarly over prepared for CARS on Monday when I go in for the real deal.
Psych/Soc
All of these passages are within the same length as what the AAMC puts in their OG and practice test (300-500 words). How many paragraphs they are in doesn’t matter as much. Even the AAMC full length Psych/Soc section has 5/10 passages with NO figures whatsoever.
I will also say that NS Full lengths 4 and 5 are much, much more AAMC like. These 2 exams must have been made later/after 1-3, because they are much more like the AAMC in tone and Q cleverness than the 1st 3. I would say NS 4-5 are better than the EK exams, but EK 1-3 beats NS 1-3 overall. I expect all of the companies to do some major revising over the next year or so. No help for me, but hopefully it will help future testers.
Long story short, you should not go spouting off how "realistic" any exam is unless you are actually going to check your facts, and then take a deep breath, because we have so little info about this new MCAT that basing your entire study and test habits around 1 practice test and 1 half-length exam is a recipe for disaster (IMO). So few companies offer full length exams on their own without buying anything else.
I would rank (after AAMC of course) NS 4 & 5 > EK 1-3 > NS 1-3 > Kaplan 1-3 > TPR 1-2 (based on what I have taken). No matter who you go with, look at % correct, not scaled score. NONE of these companies know what the scales are or will be. We cannot know until the AAMC releases more scored exams. Until then its all guesswork.
1 day to go!!!!!
