Postpone Exam?

[JWP07]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey Everyone. I'm taking the 6/16 exam. Just want your opinions if possible.

I'm scoring fine in the science sections (10-12) but my verbal score is still low. I am getting around 5-7 on the TBR exams and a 7 on AAMC 3.

Should I postpone the exam to a later date or take the test and hope for the best? I plan on taking a few more AAMC to see if my verbal gets better. At this point, I'm hoping I can just get at least an 8.

 

[epsilonprodigy]

Since verbal is all that's holding you back, I wouldn't let your decision hinge on TBR verbal scores. The consensus is that verbal is their one slightly weak area.

Instead, hook yourself up with the EK 101 verbal book and TPRH verbal. Keep at the AAMC's, and let that trend be your determiner.

Worst case scenario, you don't hit goal scores and can always go in planning to void. Obviously do an overhaul every time you complete a verbal section and see what was behind your mistakes.

 

[JWP07]

Thanks for the great advice. I've actually been doing the EK Verbals, and it ranges anywhere from 4-8. I'm not consistent at all which is very frustrating. Also, I have trouble determining why I make the mistakes. I'll be sitting for the test no matter what, but whether I will void or not will be a tough decision since I can never tell how well I did on a verbal section.

Perhaps I should take some AAMCs and decide what to do from there. Maybe I should just take it and if I have to, retake the exam later on? I'm not applying until next year anyway.

 

[epsilonprodigy]

QUOTE=epsilonprodigy;10970022]For anyone struggling with hitting a verbal score "ceiling," I may have a few tips that will help.

Most importantly, you must, must MUST categorize your errors. In the sciences, you know if you have trouble with math or trouble with technical passages, so when you see such things, you know to be on the lookout. So why should verbal be any different? Maybe you "hate Roman numeral questions." Why? Do you tend to make faulty inclusions or faulty exclusions? How are you at extracting details? How are you at establishing the general structure, timeline and progression of the passage?

When I analyze my verbal tests, I have broken skill types down into categories. If I make a mistake, I usually chalk it up to one of the following:

• Faulty inclusion/exclusion- mostly specific to Roman numeral questions. Missing these is usually a matter of assuming something that requires an extrapolation of information, or being too concrete in your thinking and therefore excluding something that was implied but not stated. Know which side you tend toward- are you an includer or an excluder?
• Incorrect detail-pulling/quote pulling- the test writers will try to trick you by trying to make you associate a reference made in the question stem with an unrelated example from the passage. For me, good highlighting is the key to avoiding this type of mistake. Predict which expressions, names, dates, and anecdotes will likely show up in the questions as you read the passage, and highlight accordingly. Also, special attention to names will help you avoid associating the wrong quote with the wrong person. This can especially be a problem if two mentioned "experts" have similar opinions on something
• Incorrect characterization of cause/effect relationships- If A is often associated with B, and B is known to cause C, does A cause C? What's the surrounding evidence? What does the author think about any stated or implied correlations? Most importantly, is there evidence stated to back up the relationship one way or the other? Two things help me out with these types of questions most: 1) actively recognize when you are reading support or evidence for a claim, and make a mental note of WHERE it is in the passage. 2) Ask yourself, does it depend on any particular assumption? 3) Highlight, or at least make note of, any superlatives. According to the author, what is "the most significant contributor," "the worst thing Mr. So-and-so did," or the "most shocking example of blah blah blah." Also, be aware of turning points. If you see a phrase like "paradigm shift," "revolutionary," etc., be on the lookout for a cause for the stated change.
• Vague or incorrect characterization of author- this is closely tied in with identification of the main idea. Highlighting "opinion words," i.e. words that aren't necessary but convey certain feelings, will help you decide what the author thinks. General absence of these might mean the author isn't trying to persuade anyone but rather just inform or discuss.
• Vague or incorrect definition of "X"- Many times, verbal passages lop off the introduction and just start referring to a person, idea or object that is never explicitly defined. Again, be on the lookout for words that are meant to make you feel one way or the other. For example, if the author starts referring to the self-serving and greedy behavior of Bob, and goes on to talk about how Bob is primarily interested in protecting his wealth at the expense of others, what action of Bob's would the author be most surprised by? What kind of guy is Bob most likely to be? What is generally implied about Bob, and what does the author think about it?
• Structure/mapping/progression issues- Try to have a general awareness about where things are in the passage. As you're reading, say to yourself, "OK, now I'm reading about the beginning of Era X." "Now, I'm reading about what happened after the beginning. Now I'm reading about what changed." "Now, I'm reading about what the critics say." This will help you if you ever have to answer a question about the general structure, and often helps in identifying main ideas as well.
• Ear-pleasers- We all know that answer choices containing superlatives and extreme generalizations are usually wrong. But there's something ingrained in our heads about "non-PC" answers that don't sound "nice enough" or "open-minded enough." Sometimes I have found that I'll choose the watered-down version of what the passage actually stated, because the other (correct) answer choice isn't consistent with my notion of what's usually said in polite and professional society. Ask yourself, is the author being professional, polite or PC? Or are they downright pissed?

That's what I do. Might be a bit overkill but has seemed to help me.

 

[JWP07]

Whoa, this really is an overkill but I should probably use this. Thank you so much! I wish I did this before I started the EK 101 passages.

Do you think I should postpone my test from 6/16 to a later date now? I'm assuming it will take a lot of time and practice by going over my answers with this technique until I start seeing some good results.

 

[epsilonprodigy]

Honestly, I wouldn't make that decision untill you see how your AAMC verbal scores are. I definitely think AAMC and non-AAMC verbal are two beasts too different to do it any other way.