I skimmed the thread, and a few ppl wanted the EK verbal method, so I've outlined the exercise with some example questions that was incredibly helpful.
I was using Kaplan and I wanted to kill myself. They were frustratingly difficult and I found them to be offensively unrepresentative of the AAMC tests. lol... I got the EK verbal book, and checked out the 1001 passages from the library. I didn't really care THAT much about the EK strategy in terms of the chapters, but the exercises saved my life. I went from a 7-8 on verbal to getting 13's on the AAMC's.
The best thing about the EK verbal was the following exercise (modified with my little practical tips, lol).
1. cover up the answers with post-its so that only the questions are visible. DO NOT READ OR LOOK AT THE PASSAGE OR ANSWERS AT ALL.
2. Based on the question stem, write down everything that comes to mind about the passage. If the question stem is vague, come back to it after you've brainstormed the more information heavy questions. Write down what you think the author is saying, whether he likes something, hates it, is trippin out about some random environmental thing, etc. Do this for a whole verbal test. It'll take you FOREVER, but I promise you, it's worth it. Plus, it's kind of nice to be creative and take a break from obsessing about answers. At least i think so.
3. DON'T LOOK AT THE PASSAGE YET. Re write the questions and answers in extremely simplified language for yourself. I give examples below.
It's important, however, to state that I don't do this on verbal tests. I read the passage as fast as possible. I cover up the answers (I hold my hand up to the computer screen) and approximate what the answer will be based on the main idea of the passage. The more you practice this, the better you will get at picking up what the author is saying and what the QUESTIONS are actually asking. Think of it like content review for the sciences: a preliminary, yet absolutely essential, step.
This is from an EK 1001 passage (Test 4, Passage 1).
*I just did 4 questions out of 6. I didn't read/look at the passage at all, and I only confirmed the answers after I finished the whole thing.
1. The passage suggests that conflict resolution education in schools provides:
At first glance, all i know about the passage is that the author's talking about conflicts. I'll come back to it after I see the other question stems since I don't really know what the author thinks about it yet.
2. According to the passage, to whom might one look to become involved with, in order to effectively address the problems of youth violence in schools, rather than using coercion?
Ok, now I can see that the passage talks about youth violence and schools. The author obviously talks about the importance of not using coercion when teaching conflict resolution. The author believes that coercion is ineffective and doesn't curb violence or TEACH kids anything about not being violent. He's also saying that there's a group of people (maybe outside group from the schools?) that knows what's up and has a good plan for teaching schools a more effective technique....Does the author think that schools use too much coercion to reduce violence? probably. He/she also thinks, probably, that schools need outside help. He/she is making a case for some outside group to work with schools to teach them.
3. Suppose that extensive research into youth conflict resolution determined that adult intevention was detrimental to the resolution, even when violence was involved. The lesson of this experience for those attempting to prevent school violence, in general, would be:
Ok-the author is probably saying that conflict resolution is NOT working b/c adults are too involved with the kids, instead of letting the kids learn on their own. The kids are getting irritated b/c the adults are telling them what to do instead of learning on their own and they stop learning. What do you know? they fight again, and if it was violent before, now it'll be worse. The obvious lesson is that adults need to use all of the resources they can to give kids the platform to learn the process of conflict resolution with absolute minimal intervention. Obviously, based on question #2, I know that this is what adults are probably doing now. The author thinks that new techniques that emphasize independence of the kids who have beef and decrease the intervening, nagging adults is going to be more effective.
4. Suppose a study found that in the case of young ppl, they are incapable of recalling circumstances that led up to a violent conflict. Which of the following statements is an assumption of the author about conflict resolution strategies that would be called into question?
Ok, that's an intense question stem. First, kids who have no idea why they're fighting, yet use violence, says to me that they're not going to benefit from anything that requires them to look into the "WHYs" of their anger, what triggered it, etc. They can't remember!! Apparently, the author doesn't take into acount the "impulsive jackass" factor and thinks that all kids need is to talk out their feelings in private with each other and its all good. So, the author assumes:
1. kids who talk about it and work it out independently won't fight once they talk and "hug it out" without adults around; and
2. the author assumes that kids remember the triggers, causes, and circumstances that caused the fight.
Ok, so now I'm going to go back to question #1, b/c I have more info:
1. The passage suggests that conflict resolution education in schools provides:
Conflict resolution (CR) provides kids with a means to learn and implement techniques to handle their anger in a non-violent way. It reduces school violence b/c the author thinks this addresses the core issues, which is a lack of knowledge of handling conflict with appropriate techniques.
*now, I simplify the questions and answers.
1. 1. The passage suggests that conflict resolution education in schools provides:
anything that reads the passage suggests means "the author likes/hates/is worried about/thinks". So, the author likes Conflict Resolution b/c it provides:
a. students with the tools to effectively teach these concepts to the community.
kids learn CR and teach it to other kids.
b. students with the understanding to accept more traditional disciplinary actions.
kids will like getting detention, suspended, etc.
c. changes the whole school environment.
everyone benefits.
d. Teachers with guidelines emphasize their personal responsibility.
Teachers can be responsible for themselves.
I compare what I wrote down to the answer choices:
Conflict resolution (CR) provides kids with a means to learn and implement techniques to handle their anger in a non-violent way. It reduces school violence b/c the author thinks this addresses the core issues, which is a lack of knowledge of handling conflict with appropriate techniques.
Clearly, choice C is right on the money. Sweet.
2. According to the passage, to whom might one look to become involved with, in order to effectively address the problems of youth violence in schools, rather than using coercion?
In this particular example, I need to look to the passage for the detail, so I'm not going to outline the questions. Justunderstand that you're looking to some outside, beneficial party to help teach CR.
3. Suppose that extensive research into youth conflict resolution determined that adult intevention was detrimental to the resolution, even when violence was involved. The lesson of this experience for those attempting to prevent school violence, in general, would be:
reword: Adults worsen conflicts b/t kids, even violent ones. Because of this, we should all:
a. provide emphasis on further intervention where youth are in conflict.
continue to intervene.
b. attempt changes within existing structure of business solutions.
not worry about interventions at all and worry about businesses (wtf?)
c. provide more of an opportunity for youth to mediate and resolve conflicts without intevention.
take a hint and quit intervening.
d. further the use of traditional displinary actions such as suspension, detention, and expulsion.
continue to intervene.
Here's what I wrote:
Ok-the author is probably saying that conflict resolution is NOT working b/c adults are too involved with the kids, instead of letting the kids learn on their own. The kids are getting irritated b/c the adults are telling them what to do instead of learning on their own and they stop learning. What do you know? they fight again, and if it was violent before, now it'll be worse. The obvious lesson is that adults need to use all of the resources they can to give kids the platform to learn the process of conflict resolution with absolute minimal intervention. Obviously, based on question #2, I know that this is what adults are probably doing now. The author thinks that new techniques that emphasize independence of the kids who have beef and decrease the intervening, nagging adults is going to be more effective.
Clearly, choice C is correct.
4. Suppose a study found that in the case of young ppl, they are incapable of recalling circumstances that led up to a violent conflict. Which of the following statements is an assumption of the author about conflict resolution strategies that would be called into question?
reword: Kids can't remember why they started fighting in the first place. How does this contradict the author's opinion?
a. effective programs can enable children to respond nonviolently to conflict through processes of negotation, mediation, and consensus decision making.
kids won't fight when they can mediate.
b. when youth learn to recognize and constructively address what takes place before conflicts, the incidence of that situation will diminish.
kids won't fight when they look at why they started fighting in the first place.
c. the programs that appear to be the most effective are comprehensive and involve multiple components such as problem solving processes and principles of conflict resolution.'
kids won't fight when they're being taught at every level about CR.
d. too many of our young people are caught up in conflicts every day that they don't know how to manage.
kids fight becuase they're trippin about being able to cope.
Here's what I wrote down: Ok, that's an intense question stem. First, kids who have no idea why they're fighting, yet use violence, says to me that they're not going to benefit from anything that requires them to look into the "WHYs" of their anger, what triggered it, etc. They can't remember!! Apparently, the author doesn't take into acount the "impulsive jackass" factor and thinks that all kids need is to talk out their feelings in private with each other and its all good. So, the author assumes:
1. kids who talk about it and work it out independently won't fight once they talk and "hug it out" without adults around; and
2. the author assumes that kids remember the triggers, causes, and circumstances that caused the fight.
Clearly, choice B is the winner.
The stuff I write down can be quite creative, and it takes a long time at first, but let your mind really brainstorm here. The point is to see how the questions help you understand the answers, what the author is saying, etc. It's important to write down what you think the author thinks, and what the question is really asking you. If a question asks for what the author would disagree with, first write down what the author says. it's a lot easier to see what they'd disagree with if you know their original stance.
This whole thing helped me tremendously. It taught me what to look for in the passage when I was reading it, but more importantly, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. I was missing a ton of questions b/c I was bringing in my own opinion or otuside knowledge.
When I got frustrated I tried to remember the big picture. I think it's an important skill to have as a physician, you know? We've gotta learn to approach information at face value. Being able to completely focus on what you're seeing and hearing is a skill that may help you to discover, say, the root causes of an infectious disease, b/c your mind is open and sharp. It's important when that we can interpret information that's not presented "scientifically" (i.e. WHAT OUR PATIENTS WILL BE SAYING) and form conclusions from there.
if you suck at verbal, you can still be a good doctor obviously. I'm just offering a little pep talk for ppl who are discouraged. heh.
Hope this helped!
I was very surprised because the passages on economics and law really messed me up. I have an econ degree and I took a lot of law classes (econ is pre-law pretty much). I understood those passages more than I needed. Maybe that's what messed me up. Tomorrow morning I will review through EK's explainations on their website to see what parts I'm missing on. If I can improve, I would like to get a 10. I have 9 more full length MCATs so hopefully it will be enough practice.
Has anyone else noticed that EK moethods might not be the best for TPR's???? Do we just suck???? We have been working VERY VERY hard at raising our verbal scores and it just doesn't seem to increase with TPR tests. Are the AAMC tests similar in passage and question length to EK's or are they longer and more retrieval based like the TPR's?? Are the TPR's worth stressing out over?? The MCAT is creeping up and I dont want my verbal reasoning score to be the reason that i didn't get accepted to Med School. PLEASE HELP!
moment with regards to this section!!!
