You don't know me and you don't know how well I knew the material, nor do you know anything about my reasoning abilities, so unless you took yesterday's test and found it reasonable (in which case you are a genius), you shouldn't make comments about how hard or easy yesterday's test was.
That was really harsh IMO. He/she made a general point about the issue, and you took it as a personal attack, which I see no reason for. Furthermore, his/her general idea was right: if you prepare more for this test, your expected value per question is obviously higher. The disparity between prepared test-takers and unprepared ones may not be as high as previously administered MCATs, but those who prepared still had an edge.
Preparation and reasoning ability help only if MCAT (or any standardized test for that matter) doesn't exceed some threshold level of difficulty. The tests administered in April and May (with the possible exception of May 31st) were fair in that people with better knowledge and reasoninng skills got higher scores. I know several people who took those tests. I know their level of knowledge, their reasoning ability, and the effort they put into the exam prep.
I took the Aug 20 administration, with relatively little studying under my belt.
Yet I took the test, and found it quite reasonable. Did it require more critical thinking, logic and reasoning than previous MCATs? Sure sounds like it, but to think that it was past a threshold of something reasonable is really farfetched in my opinion. I will agree that there should be a fair balance between reasoning and knowledge, but I disagree that the Aug 20 MCAT was past reasonable. This is just my opinion of course.
The fact is there is a GREAT variability in the difficulty of the exams, which, like I have said before, results in luck being a major factor in determing your score.
Is there always variability involved in the MCAT? Obviously, but ditto with many other things in life. But more importantly, like I said, those who are prepared, will generally do better in the long run. Those who are better will be able to reduce the effects of luck in the long term, so what's the point in even arguing the existence of luck or chance? Don't let short term variance phase you like this - I myself would not want a physician phased by short term variance.
The best way to test if someone knows science is not through some stupid written test but through a verbal examination. Of course, this is impractical, which is why MCAT is a written test.. If you want to argue which skills are more important to being a good physician: being able to take lucky guesses or knowing your science cold, I'd go with the latter. Do you want to become a guinea pig in your doctor's game of lucky guesses or do you want your doctor to know his/her suff inside out?
What is the purpose of the MCAT? To test how well people know science? if that's what you think, then I respectfully disagree. In fact, the most recent administrations of the MCAT seem to disagree with that notion more clearly. In my opinion, the purpose of the MCAT is to test certain skills that are important for a physician to have - the ability to analyze new information and make good decisions quickly, analytical and critical thinking, the ability to handle oneself well under stress, etc. etc. This is better done through the new. what you call "tougher", more passage based MCATs.
Let me ask you this: Do you want a doctor who is only capable of regurgitating things learned in medical school, or do you want a doctor who is able to analyze new situations and solve new problems? What if you have a brain injury never seen before - what type of doctor do you want on your case?
I agree there is a place for displaying the ability to do science, but I think the knowledge for medicine can be taught - to teach critical thinking and reasoning is WAY harder, and that is why I think it's good that the MCAT is getting more passage, reasoning based.
Just my two cents, feel free to disagree.
