Not improving in VR with EK

[DoctorSaab]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I am finding myself and people that I know stuck at the same score in VR. We are using Ek101. We all have done over 5 exams and are stuck on border with 8 and 9's. After how many tests do people usually start seeing improvements with EK101?

 

[EFesta77]

I am finding myself and people that I know stuck at the same score in VR. We are using Ek101. We all have done over 5 exams and are stuck on border with 8 and 9's. After how many tests do people usually start seeing improvements with EK101?

I don't know lol. I keep getting 10s and 11s and I have taken 6 of those tests. it is kind of frustrating, but I feel like it will help in the end.

 

[DoctorSaab]

Yeh, I'm running out of tests here. EK needs to release another EK101 Part 2 lol.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I am finding myself and people that I know stuck at the same score in VR. We are using Ek101. We all have done over 5 exams and are stuck on border with 8 and 9's. After how many tests do people usually start seeing improvements with EK101?

Spend a lot of time going over your results to see what you are doing wrong. You don't have to follow EKs guidelines to the letter -- different thing sowrk for different people. Use the passages as experiments to see what will help you to get the highest score. I was in the same boat, and then I realized that my scores weren't improving, and I needed to try something different. For me, underlining the main idea of each paragraph, as well as important details that I "have a hunch" will be asked about in the questions in some way has helped me to improve my score. I know that EK recommends against marking up the passages, but they also recommend NOT going back to the passage unless you know exactly what you are looking for and where to look for it. For me, the whole "if you read for the main idea, you'll also remember the details" philosophy of EK never clicked. I agree that you need to read for the main idea, since lots of questions ask things about the main idea, but the more detail-related questions almost always require my going back to the passage, and marking up the passage as I read makes it easier and quicker to find these details in the passage.

Basically, what I am saying is that when I began to treat verbal passages as experiments to try diferent strategies, I began to see what worked for me and was able to improve my scores. Maybe this will work for you all, as well.

Good Luck,

Jota

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I am finding myself and people that I know stuck at the same score in VR. We are using Ek101. We all have done over 5 exams and are stuck on border with 8 and 9's. After how many tests do people usually start seeing improvements with EK101?

EK 101 VR is slightly harder than MCAT verbal, but not too far off. Do the tests timed, and read for the main idea. No one can really teach you verbal, you just have to teach yourself. I was consistently scoring 10-11 for about the first 7 or 8 EK vr's, but then I got a high schoore of 12 on the final few. On the real MCAT I got a 13, much to my joy. Stick with it, and make sure to do as many VR practice tests as humanly possible. I'm no verbal genius (only a 670 on the SAT verbal), but this is something you have to make yourself good at.

 

[vkhalsa]

bump

 

[ericali]

EK 101 VR is slightly harder than MCAT verbal, but not too far off. Do the tests timed, and read for the main idea. No one can really teach you verbal, you just have to teach yourself. I was consistently scoring 10-11 for about the first 7 or 8 EK vr's, but then I got a high schoore of 12 on the final few. On the real MCAT I got a 13, much to my joy. Stick with it, and make sure to do as many VR practice tests as humanly possible. I'm no verbal genius (only a 670 on the SAT verbal), but this is something you have to make yourself good at.

You think EK 101 is harder than the real MCAT? Joy! I'm one question away from a 12 on test 2 (which I did after doing 1-6 skipping 2) but today I did a Kaplan test and only got an 8!!!!!! WTF. I find a lot of Kaplan stuff pretty sketchy, though. What do people think? I feel the question on EK 101 is closer to the real deal, but the passages are too easy!

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You think EK 101 is harder than the real MCAT? Joy! I'm one question away from a 12 on test 2 (which I did after doing 1-6 skipping 2) but today I did a Kaplan test and only got an 8!!!!!! WTF. I find a lot of Kaplan stuff pretty sketchy, though. What do people think? I feel the question on EK 101 is closer to the real deal, but the passages are too easy!

I always thought that Kaplan's passages weren't as MCATesque as EK's

 

[ericali]

I always thought that Kaplan's passages weren't as MCATesque as EK's

Do you not find EK passages to be too easy or too interesting in their topic? Though I have to admit Kaplan passages don't seem MCATest either. EK definitely has better questions hands down.

 

[DoctorSaab]

EK passages are indeed VERY interesting to read compared to others. I can pay attention on most. Remember the diapers one?

I haven't taken any AAMC exams yet, but from what I hear I guess they are much more boring and harder to read. If that is the case, how does EK and AAMC compare so well?

 

[sweetstuff25]

EK passages are indeed VERY interesting to read compared to others. I can pay attention on most. Remember the diapers one?

I haven't taken any AAMC exams yet, but from what I hear I guess they are much more boring and harder to read. If that is the case, how does EK and AAMC compare so well?

if you thot the diapers one was funny, wait until you read the passage on pimps. LOL. yea, aamc passages are lame and disgusting.

 

[ericali]

I find that the EK tests are harder in terms of questions and answer choices but easier to read. I found the material less dense is EK 101 then in other material. However, if you take their actual full length exams, the passages are equally as dense as the real deal but a lot harder then the real deal.

I actually find that some of the passages in the 101 book are kinda fun to read because they deal with real life issues such as the passage in test 11 dealing with Bill Gates Speech to highschool students.

If you are doing well on EK tests, you should have no problem with the real VR. Kaplan and TPR, from my understanding, don't reflect the VR as well as EK does. I've heard this from several students. That said, go back and review what you got wrong on Kaplan's test. It might have been more dense reading, or maybe it was due to taking it with full blown testing conditions in which you'll need to work on stamina.

I looked at the answer choices and just think the questions are poorly written. And none of the answer choices should have been "correct." Besides, Kaplan emphasizes details too much, and maybe their answer is legit but the real deal doesn't emphasize detail and out-of-context lines nearly as much as the main idea. I'm good at picking out the main idea and any relevant details, but not the esoteric details on line 41 which is just mentioned in passing by the authro.

Also, on the real deal: is it true you'll always have 2 pretty easy passages? Because on the Kaplan I took yesterday, none of the passages are easy.

 

[Mr. Tee]

What I've noticed on the AAMC practice tests is that there are two passages with 10 questions each. These two mega passages are typically the hardest.

 

[Orthodoc40]

The thing about Kaplan's practice tests (in Verbal) is that they follow too much of a formula with their questions and answers. They train you to expect to be asked a formularized set of questions, and to learn to look for the answers that way. I was great at those practice verbals but the real test killed me. Why? The AAMC tests, in my opinion, ask far more ambiguous and convoluted questions, with a selection of answers that are often very close to the same thing, or truly leave you feeling "it could be either one of these 2". You NEVER got that with Kaplan practice tests!! But you DO get that with the EK practice tests for verbal - and that is why I think they are closest to the real deal.

That said, I am getting pretty annoyed with some of their explanations for why the right answer is "right"!!

 

[saxquiz]

I've always believed that the verbal section on any standardized test (be it the SAT or the MCAT) is the hardest to improve. The reason being is that you start your journey to verbal mastery at the moment you start learning to read and comprehend. Your reading comprehension skills are taught ("learned" may be better here) much earlier (and are really mostly taught by your own reasoning capacity; learned more by yourself rather than taught by a teacher) than your science skills. In a science class you typically read the chapter and then go to a lecture where the teacher explains to you what the chapter means (basically explains what you read). If you had trouble reading and comprehending the chapter by yourself, then you may still actually learn the material by having it explained to you and reinforced by the lecture. Thus, one can be fairly successful in many subjects even with reading comprehension skills that are lacking.
With reading comprehension, it's all up to you. You aren't going to have a lecture telling you how to learn the material yourself. After all, reading comprehension is learning the material yourself. I believe that a person either knows or doesn't know how to comprehend written passages well by a young age and that a person can improve a little bit on their reading comprehension once they are older (say college age), but that it can never be mastered as well as someone who learned well how to comprehend at a young age.
I say all this to say that a reading comprehension test is a great measure of IQ. Your intelligence is greatly based on how well you comprehend written words. I would say that the best way to improve one's reading comprehension would be to take a class on thought (say philosophy or literature classes). I would say math classes like calculus too, but many people can get by in classes like these without actually learning the material (what they're doing actually means), but simply learning the method to get the right answer (copycating the prof/book). This also explains why many humanities and math majors do the best on the MCAT. I don't think that it's because they took such classes, but because they wanted to take them and were interested in that kind of thing (reasoning, thought, logic).

 

[DrBuro]

I haven't posted in a while, but I love you guys. Good to hear other people complaining, or thinking, the same things as me. Good luck next month everyone. I probably won't be back online before then!

 

[Ugly Boy]

I've always believed that the verbal section on any standardized test (be it the SAT or the MCAT) is the hardest to improve. The reason being is that you start your journey to verbal mastery at the moment you start learning to read and comprehend. Your reading comprehension skills are taught ("learned" may be better here) much earlier (and are really mostly taught by your own reasoning capacity; learned more by yourself rather than taught by a teacher) than your science skills. In a science class you typically read the chapter and then go to a lecture where the teacher explains to you what the chapter means (basically explains what you read). If you had trouble reading and comprehending the chapter by yourself, then you may still actually learn the material by having it explained to you and reinforced by the lecture. Thus, one can be fairly successful in many subjects even with reading comprehension skills that are lacking.
With reading comprehension, it's all up to you. You aren't going to have a lecture telling you how to learn the material yourself. After all, reading comprehension is learning the material yourself. I believe that a person either knows or doesn't know how to comprehend written passages well by a young age and that a person can improve a little bit on their reading comprehension once they are older (say college age), but that it can never be mastered as well as someone who learned well how to comprehend at a young age.
I say all this to say that a reading comprehension test is a great measure of IQ. Your intelligence is greatly based on how well you comprehend written words. I would say that the best way to improve one's reading comprehension would be to take a class on thought (say philosophy or literature classes). I would say math classes like calculus too, but many people can get by in classes like these without actually learning the material (what they're doing actually means), but simply learning the method to get the right answer (copycating the prof/book). This also explains why many humanities and math majors do the best on the MCAT. I don't think that it's because they took such classes, but because they wanted to take them and were interested in that kind of thing (reasoning, thought, logic).

I disagree with this. Many non-native English speakers don't do well in the verbal section. Is this because their IQ is lower? No, it is because they are not familiar with the nature of the English language. The same can even be said for native speakers - if you do not have a genuine discernment of the dynamics of English, then you might not fare as well as others who do. That is not to say your IQ is lower, it's just that you lack sufficient comprehension of the structure of the language system to truly harness your mental capacity.

Learning is based on models and analogies. The sciences explains natural phenomenons; natural phenomenons can be readily represented by physical and mathematical models. People accustomed to visualizing spatially and reason mathematically are more comfortable in these disciplines. Succeeding in these disciplines don't simply entail replicating another's work; as a matter of fact, most of them demand rigorous, authentic thinking. Linguistic reasoning is a cultural phenomenon, so it cannot be based on physical models. But that doesn't mean everything is a product of profound thinking. To reason verbally, you must be able to deduce from a set of premise. These premises are like the physical models in the sciences, and so the greater grasp you have of the English language (of any language for that matter) and of its fluid nature, the more sound your premise is (i.e., the more accurate your model is), and hence the more "reasonable" you become.

So a person who does better in math but worse in verbal isn't necessarily dumber; his/her system of thoughts just happen to be encrypted in another language.

To me, a measurement of intelligence limited to any single discipline is inaccurate because knowledge is a poor indicator of IQ. Intelligence is how far you can push the limits of your imagination relative to the knowledge you possess.

 

[saxquiz]

Many non-native English speakers don't do well in the verbal section. Is this because their IQ is lower? No.

I think your argument is great except for this part. This statement is clear to anyone. I'm not so ignorant as to think that giving a test in english to a german and having him fail it means that his IQ is extremely low (even if he does know english well). It's hard (if not impossible) to learn a second language just as well as your first. Immigrants represent a special case though. Many of the Indians I know never do as well in English reading comprehension despite coming to the US at the beginning of elementary school. This serves to further my belief that reading comprehension skills are learned at a very young age (before I said when you start learning to read, but now it seems that it starts in the womb when you hear your mother speaking) and seldom can they be drastically improved upon once you are older. In an ideal circumstance, there would be a verbal section in everyones' native language. This would be a much better indicator of reasoning skill than giving, say, a Spaniard an exam in English. But, since the doctors trained in the US are expected to learn the material from reading English textooks (and not textbooks in their native language), this doesn't really serve a purpose for a medical school entrance exam.​

It has been argued that we can only think in terms of what our language can express. Thus, language sets the rules of what we can think (language gives us the templates through which we view the world).

So a person who does better in math but worse in verbal isn't necessarily dumber; his/her system of thoughts just happen to be encrypted in another language.

I wouldn't totally rule this out, and I find it interesting, but I've never met anyone who could succede (really succede, not just reproduce others work (I like the way you put it 😉 ) in math, yet not be able to discern the allegory in classic novels. One can learn to reproduce the solutions that others have assembled (as with math), but with verbal, you can only do it well if you are truly intelligent. You can't copy or be taught.
Therefore, if you didn't read as a kid or you're a foreign immigrant, abandon all hope of getting super high on verbal!!!

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Most isn't based on facts or data, just experience. 👍 👍

 

[Ugly Boy]

good for you.

 

[saxquiz]

thanks

 

[WestTexasRambler]

thanks

funny $hit, that exchange.


'Rambler