SAT/LSAT harder then the MCAT. Hear me out...

[phillySASer08]

well let me ask you guys this...are you more impressed with someone that can retain a vast amount of information or someone that can figure out a complex problem using deductive reasoning?

I only brought the subject up because my sister just took the last and got a 170 on it. She said she to a diagnostic cold 2 months prior to it and got a 166. About two weeks before the actual tests she was hitting 171/172. Her argument was that the LSAT was harder than the mcat...in fact, much harder. She took all the pre-med courses as an undergrad and said that with about 2-3 weeks of review she'd be able to do fairly well on the mcat. whereas on the lsat she said it would take her ALOT more practice to even get close to a 175-180

The OP seems to labor under the delusion still that the MCAT is primarily a knowledge-based test. Granted, it is a test that requires a fair amount of background knowledge, but in the majority of cases one is expected to deduce the answers to questions based on knowledge in the passage, not on information one studied beforehand. However, in order to get an exceptional score, one must master logic-based questions that are the majority of the test, as well as the content-based discrete questions, and in many cases, such as the one example mentioned earlier, questions can require both components. I find it difficult to believe that a test that requires no background knowledge and only logical reasoning is more challenging than a test that requires the same amount of reasoning coupled with the background knowledge of 2+ years of coursework.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jult24er]

who cares which is harder...they all pretty much have a bellshaped distribution.


Besides you can easily get into law school scoring sub 50%ile on the LSAT...but good luck getting into med school with less than 75%ile

Good point. The question, then, is who would you rather be competing against, the population of lsat takers or mcat takers? I'd say, if you're going to work harder then most and can reason decently, go with the mcat, knowledge will get you somewhere. If you're just more logical then most, the lsat will be the easier test.

 

[KnuxNole]

I wish the LSAT logic games were part of the MCAT...they can test whether we will be able to properly diagnose a complex disease. Of course I know that the VR would be a better part of the test than the LSAT logic, but I never liked reading, I only started to read book when I got out of HS. That is why I get so bored practicing verbal at the start...but then I got used to it. I still sometimes find myself not reading entire posts on SDN(like when there are discussions with 3 paragraphs of info, i sometimes just skip most of it).

 

[n3opologist]

As a physician, one has to be able to take a **** load of information and make split second applications of that knowledge in order to save someone's life. True, a trial attorney has to be able to think on his/her feet, but when prosecuting a murderer, you don't have to have the breadth of knowledge or skill you need when working in the ER or performing surgery. The successful attorney will be one who has phenomenal logic skills and can prove to a jury through deductive reasoning why or why not a defendant is guilty or innocent. The physician is basing his decisions on concrete knowledge based on empirical data and his/her experience. However, the logic of a winning attorney isn't based on experimentation or a textbook. It's somewhat innate.

The MCAT and LSAT are both very appropriate in what they are testing for. To argue one is harder than the other is pointless. It is comparing apples and oranges; they are both fruit, just as the MCAT and LSAT are both tests. But it really stops there in terms of comparing. Arguing one is harder is like arguing that the apple tastes better. It's a subjective opinion and nothing more.

The SAT is a joke and shouldn't even be considered in the comparison. The math needed on the SAT is less advanced than the algebra/trig you need on physics problems on the MCAT.

 

[Gpan]

I'd much rather study for the MCAT than the LSAT b/c it's easier to study for the MCAT.... I feel like I'd just give up after a certain point ... trying to answer questions like this:




An amusement park roller coaster includes five cars, numbered 1 through 5 from front to back. Each car accommodates up to two riders, seated side by side. Six people—Tom, Gwen, Laurie, Mark, Paul and Jack—are riding the coaster at the same time.

• Laurie is sharing a car.
• Mark is not sharing a car and is seated immediately behind an empty car.
• Tom is not sharing a car with either Gwen or Paul.
• Gwen is riding in either the third or fourth car.

Which one of the following statements CANNOT be true?
[SIZE=-3].[/SIZE]
(A) Neither Tom nor Gwen is sharing a car with
........ another rider
(B) Neither Mark nor Jack is sharing a car with
........ another rider.
(C) Tom is sharing a car, and Jack is sharing a car.
(D) Gwen is sharing a car, and Paul is sharing a car.
(E) Tom is sharing a car, and Gwen is sharing a car.

It's A. That was easy.

 

[Gpan]

well let me ask you guys this...are you more impressed with someone that can retain a vast amount of information or someone that can figure out a complex problem using deductive reasoning?

I only brought the subject up because my sister just took the last and got a 170 on it. She said she to a diagnostic cold 2 months prior to it and got a 166. About two weeks before the actual tests she was hitting 171/172. Her argument was that the LSAT was harder than the mcat...in fact, much harder. She took all the pre-med courses as an undergrad and said that with about 2-3 weeks of review she'd be able to do fairly well on the mcat. whereas on the lsat she said it would take her ALOT more practice to even get close to a 175-180

Most things are relative. This one is no different.

 

[redlight]

So yes, MCAT is knowledge based, LOTS of knowledge,

Then you get asked questions like this:

The nucleus of a tadpole intestinal cell is removed and transplanted into a denucleated frog zygote. The zygote develops normally after the transplant. The experimental results suggest that:

A. cell differentiation is controlled by irreversibly repressing genes not needed by the cell.
B. cell differentiation is controlled by selectively repressing genes not needed by the cell
C. the cytoplasm of the zygote contains all of the information needed for normal adult development in the form of RNA
d. the ribosomes found in the nucleus of the zygote are the same as those fund in an adult frog

So quite obviously LOGIC plays a role as well.

To any of you who are suggesting that the SAT > MCAT, gimme a break...

yea i would guess B on this one

i cant find evidence for A in the results. if differentiation was irreversible, wouldnt the zygote not form correctly because the implanted nucleus was from a differentiated intestine cell?
c is wrong. the cytoplasm would contain the right nutrients (i read somewhere once that we can control which types of cells stem cells differentiate into based on the given nutrients in the environment the stem cells cultures are grown in), proteins, etc. and not all the genetic information. that's why we need the nucleus
d. i cant find evidence for this based on the results. we were dealing with a tadpole intestine cell and a frog nucleus so this answer choice seems irrelevant.


and OP: no, the s.a.t was a joke. i know someone who improved almost 400 points in 1 summer with a tutor (score went from 1900s to 2300s). it doesnt test logic, it tests how well you know the sat. test prep agencies have exposed the s.a.t.
and yea i'd imagine that the lsat would be harder for premeds because verbal is the 'toughest' section and the lsat is harder than mcat verbal. on the whole, the mcat is harder in my opinion because it tests both knowledge base in science and general logic.

 

[HumidBeing]

This is a repeat reminder to please keep the discussion civil and within bounds of our Terms of Service.

 

[Ginzo]

The idea that the MCAT is primarily a knowledge-based test is wrong. Knowledge is essential to MCAT success and the discreet questions are basically all knowledge-based. However, most MCAT experts, like Exam Krackers, say that MCAT is primarily a thinking test. You have to be able to *apply* the knowledge. The fact that it requires an immense knowledge base in addition to thinking/analysis only serves to make the exam harder.

Maybe the LSAT is harder, but really who cares? Entrance tests are about weeding out and not a lot else.

 

[whoisthedrizzle]

Hey whats up with this troll thing? are people suggesting i am a ghoulish creature that collects and harasses people crossing a bridge?

People here get really defensive when you question how hard the MCAT is. Especially people who don't do well on it. What you say is 100% true: it's easier for a dumb person to do well on the MCAT than the LSAT.

The bottom line is that each test serves its purpose: doctors have to apply biological knowledge to new situations, lawyers apply legal knowledge to defend their clients. Since nobody learns law in undergrad, the LSAT can't be a knowledge based test like the MCAT. Thus, they test logic.

 

[Steeler7588]

I think you're missing the influence of something quite important in that score increase, which is... maturity (two years is a lot of time, relatively speaking, for a developing mind). I got a 1210 when I took the SAT in 7th grade, and then a 1600 when I took it for real in 11th grade. Did I do any more focused preparation the second time around to account for the increase? No; in fact, I didn't study at all that time, but I still did better because I was a more developed person intellectually.

I know people who had substantial increases in the same year. And no, my friend's score jumped so much (basically, all in the verbal section) because he understood the English language better and expanded his vocabulary. That's 70% of the Verbal section - knowing what words mean. How is that based in logic?

 

[redlight]

I know people who had substantial increases in the same year. And no, my friend's score jumped so much (basically, all in the verbal section) because he understood the English language better and expanded his vocabulary. That's 70% of the Verbal section - knowing what words mean. How is that based in logic?

no way, vocab is not 70% of the critical reading section (or do you mean the verbal section of the outdated s.a.t out of 1600?)
and you don't need to know the definition of the vocab in most cases. you just uses context clues and maybe some knowledge of certain latin roots to guide your thought process.
i'm pretty sure most of the questions were interpretation/inference questions like "what is the author trying to say in line 3 when he says..."

 

[Steeler7588]

no way, vocab is not 70% of the critical reading section (or do you mean the verbal section of the outdated s.a.t out of 1600?)
and you don't need to know the definition of the vocab in most cases. you just uses context clues and maybe some knowledge of certain latin roots to guide your thought process.
i'm pretty sure most of the questions were interpretation/inference questions like "what is the author trying to say in line 3 when he says..."

Haha, yes, I mean the "outdated" version from way back in 2005 (Seriously, three years isn't long at all, but I admit I didn't think even that much time had passed since they changed it. Wow, time flies...). It was basically divided into analogies, sentence completion, and critical reading - the first two were so much easier if you had a good vocabulary. I guess it's now entirely critical reading?

Still, the SAT is nowhere close in difficulty to the MCAT. Trust me, in August when I take the MCAT I would *love* to score in the same percentile as I did on the SAT, but the tests are in two very different leagues. LSAT? Maybe, I'm not familiar with it at all. SAT? No way.

 

[gplex86]

I have taken the LSAT and the Verbal section of the MCAT. The logic game in the LSAT are amongst some of the toughest questions ive ever faced.

You ONLY took the verbal section of the MCAT? GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!

 

[Bearferret]

For what it's worth, I've taught standardized tests, including all the ones we're talking about here, for years, and for me, the MCAT is far more difficult than the others.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that I am, by nature, a very logical person; my strengths lie in my ability to reason critically and quickly. Therefore, the LSAT was pretty easy for me; a little self-study, and I was able to score a 180. The MCAT, on the other hand, no matter who you are, requires an awful lot of work to prepare. Doing lots of work is not my strong suit. So for me, the MCAT was much more difficult, purely because of the amount of work I had to put into it, and it's for that reason that I think the LSAT is generally easier.

But I can easily see how someone else, whose strengths and weaknesses are more or less the opposite of mine, would see the LSAT as insurmountable and the MCAT as eminently doable.

Lastly, though, I hasten to point out that logical reasoning IS an improvable skill, and preparing for the LSAT, if you do it appropriately, isn't quite as daunting as people here are making it out to be.

 

[littlealex]

That's how an MCAT question is formulated? Excellent, it looks like it's from my Bio 2 exam. Screw those who say Biology is just memorization. And D.

lol.

Ribosomes in the animal nucleus?

 

[pianola]

I only wish to make the following points.

(1) The MCAT is very poorly standardized at best -- you may need to know 10 things about the kidney on test day, or you may not even need to know that human beings HAVE kidneys. Good grief.

(2) What some people call "reasoning ability" is equivalent to what other people call "rote memorization"

For example: "Which of the following elements is the most electronegative?"

A. Carbon
B. Fluorine
C. Nitrogen
D. Potassium

I would argue that this question tests your rote memorization because if you memorize the trends of the periodic table, you pretty much have to be a ***** not to figure out the answer.

However, if, for you, the difficult part of this question lies in figuring out left from right on the periodic table, or realizing that there is in fact a scenario that describes electronegativity, then perhaps "reasoning" is your challenge for the MCAT.

(3) Don't forget the time factor involved in the MCAT. I mean, it's not just "difficult". It's "difficult" for 5 or 6 hours. (Boo).

That's all.

 

[Dedikated2liftn]

You ONLY took the verbal section of the MCAT? GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!

Better watch it dude, the mods have already sent me a message concerning my post (and my "vulguar" language) on here and subsequently deleted it. Having said that, I'm 100 % with you..the OP needs a kick in the nuts for even posting a thread like this.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I only wish to make the following points.

(1) The MCAT is very poorly standardized at best -- you may need to know 10 things about the kidney on test day, or you may not even need to know that human beings HAVE kidneys. Good grief.

(2) What some people call "reasoning ability" is equivalent to what other people call "rote memorization"

For example: "Which of the following elements is the most electronegative?"

A. Carbon
B. Fluorine
C. Nitrogen
D. Potassium

I would argue that this question tests your rote memorization because if you memorize the trends of the periodic table, you pretty much have to be a ***** not to figure out the answer.

However, if, for you, the difficult part of this question lies in figuring out left from right on the periodic table, or realizing that there is in fact a scenario that describes electronegativity, then perhaps "reasoning" is your challenge for the MCAT.

(3) Don't forget the time factor involved in the MCAT. I mean, it's not just "difficult". It's "difficult" for 5 or 6 hours. (Boo).

That's all.

that question is definitely memorization..but you would be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 questions that easy on the real thing.

 

[MWK]

To the OP:

Practice scores to real score jump can't 'count'. I went up "11" points from my diagnostic. Familiarization with test content and question style makes ANYONE go up in points, regardless of the test being taken.

Lets take your sister, for example. She went 166 (practice) to 170 (real). Good for her. Obviously as you get higher up in standardized (meaning out of a curve) tests, the more work: score correlation. You are far more likely to go from a 25 to a 35 than from 35 to 45, or even 40. So your sister getting even from 166 to 170 is a lot easier than 170 to 174.

And if we're getting anecdotal, I had a buddy this past spring take go from 158 to 170 w/ about 6 months of prep. So your 12 point jumps can happen.

The point being is that they both test the applicants for the skills required for the desired study. A bunch of pre-law kids taking the MCAT would be abysmal. A bunch of pre-med kids would be less bad because the LSAT is more of a 'practical' test. As to which is harder, whos to say. There ARE 180's every year. There are NOT 45's every year.


And it doesnt matter, Step 1 will be way harder.

 

[smeagol]

My argument is: The logic required in the LSAT is compounded in comparison to the MCAT. Thus making it harder.

Like a previous poster stated, the MCAT is VERY knowledge based giving the test taker more of an opportunity to prepare for a better score. Thus making the LSAT harder.

You praise logic so much and yet you neglect using it when applying words like 'thus.'

P1: LSAT logic is more difficult than MCAT logic
P2: Thus, LSAT is a more difficult test.

This is not a valid conclusion.

If you had a test, lets call it LLORT, which required you to memorize 4 million items of knowledge without mistake, it would be far more difficult than a test of logic granted that you do not have photographic memory. Example is exaggerated to make the point clear.

I'm not an expert since I haven't taken both.... but....

I would argue that the MCAT is not in fact a "logic" test the way the LSAT apparently is. Think about all the folks over on the MCAT forum who say/ask things along the lines of "I'm scoring 12-14 in BS and PS on my practice tests, but can't get above 7 on VR. What do I need to do?" I've seen A LOT of those threads. What does this indicate? In my opinion it indicates that one can do quite well on BS and PS by memorizing, memorizing, memorizing and learning material. This of course is not true of VR.

Exhibit B: My wife, who has a bachelor's in a nonscience field, took one of my practice MCATs for fun once. Scored 12 on VR. Couldn't break a 6 on the other sections. Did her logic just disappear on the science sections? (Yes, my wife and I are nerds).

I'm quite surprised your wife could not break a 6 on BS given that she received 12 on VR. Recent examinees can tell you that the BS section is very similar to VR, but with passages about biology (though this is less true of organic chemistry passages). For instance, I had a passage on evolution where all the answers were in the passage -simple reading comprehension.

well let me ask you guys this...are you more impressed with someone that can retain a vast amount of information or someone that can figure out a complex problem using deductive reasoning?

I only brought the subject up because my sister just took the last and got a 170 on it. She said she to a diagnostic cold 2 months prior to it and got a 166. About two weeks before the actual tests she was hitting 171/172. Her argument was that the LSAT was harder than the mcat...in fact, much harder. She took all the pre-med courses as an undergrad and said that with about 2-3 weeks of review she'd be able to do fairly well on the mcat. whereas on the lsat she said it would take her ALOT more practice to even get close to a 175-180

I love these statements about one's potentiality.

I could have gotten a 43+ MCAT given that I did X thing, attended Y university, took Z course, studied a godzillion hours in a time bubble, ate magical bananas, etc etc...

I didn't do it, but I could have. So a 43 MCAT is in my virtual bag if you will.

In the spirit of making claims of one's potential, I could have been an Olympic athlete if I had been training since I was 4.

Hey whats up with this troll thing? are people suggesting i am a ghoulish creature that collects and harasses people crossing a bridge?

You are also known to turn to stone upon being struck with sun beams.

 

[SupaManu]

I've taken the Lsat and the Mcat and by far i think the lsat was easier. The games are the toughest part but if u spend a few days studying them they are really easy, i think i got htem all right. I hardly studied for the lsat and did very well. Im not saying its an easy test but u just don't have to know the same about of information.

 

[pianola]

that question is definitely memorization..but you would be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 questions that easy on the real thing.

Well, your point is taken, of course. But most of them aren't THAT much harder LOGICALLY speaking, provided you have a good knowledge base.

I mean, AAMC tests don't require you to reinvent physics or bio or chem. MCAT questions ask you about what someone else has already figured out.

 

[FinJim]

OPINIONS: I taught Orgo for the Princeton Review's MCAT course. My training instructor teaches every section of every test Princeton Review offers a course for. The man is a brain. His opinion is the MCAT is the hardest test by far. He said that "the only test that even touches the MCAT is the LSAT."

In addition to the Princeton Review instructor's opinion, I have spoken with two people who have taken the LSAT, MCAT, and GRE. Both scored 170-175 on the LSAT; one was accepted to Northwestern Law and the other to UVA. Both laughed when I asked them if the LSAT was harder than the MCAT; they both were convinced that the MCAT is harder (Northwestern girl is now an M.D. in her radiology residency, UVA guy is now a J.D.). There might be people who have taken both and think the opposite, but I have yet to met them. From the posts above, it seems that the general consensus from those who have taken both is that (big surprise!) the MCAT is more difficult.

When my roommate studied for the LSAT, he showed me a 'Game' passage in his Princeton workbook that he considered to be the toughest. I'd much rather take that test ANY DAY OF THE WEEK than the MCAT. That's just my opinion, though.

Fact: The first time I took the MCAT, my VReasoning (reasoning=logic?) score was embarassingly low. However, the second time I took the test, my VReasoning score shot up 5 points (above 10) while both science sections only went up 2 each. [Opinion: logic can be practiced and greatly improved].

So those of you who have actually gone through and officially taken both tests (not just 'studied' for the LSAT or MCAT) have the most room to talk. It just so happens that everyone I've encountered who has done such a task says that the MCAT is tougher. We could argue til we're blue in the face about whether applying years of memorized knowledge to a largely critical thinking exam (i.e. MCAT) is tougher than a logic-based critical thinking exam (i.e. LSAT), but at the end of the day, I'm goin with those who have taken both tests and know what the hell they're talkin about.

 

[parto123]

I think the VR section of the MCAT would be a pretty good indication of what one would score on the LSAT.

 

[LilHouse]

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Well, your point is taken, of course. But most of them aren't THAT much harder LOGICALLY speaking, provided you have a good knowledge base.

I mean, AAMC tests don't require you to reinvent physics or bio or chem. MCAT questions ask you about what someone else has already figured out.

have you taken the MCAT recently? If you have you wuold realize it wasnt like aamcs

 

[pianola]

Actually, I took it last Friday.

And here's the thing: even if I get a 12J (dear God please let's hope not), it's not because the MCAT was hard, it was because I didn't know the content that I needed to know.

[OK, I'm not in line for a 12J but insert some-score-lower-than-I-want-it-to-be.]

 

[Lacheln]

The LSAT was fun, the MCAT was work. The LSAT is just a logic aptitude test. I took it without studying at all - 2 practice tests, and did very well."Harder" can also mean the effort put into getting ready for something, which I think the MCAT wins on hands down.

 

[chunglee]

This is crazy, Medicine is a tier 1 profession, far more reputable and respected than law or anything else. This is why the MCAT is the hardest. Only the cream of the crop can do well on it.

 

[BeachBlondie]

Ok...

It all kind of depends on what kind of inherent intelligence one possesses. If you have always been that guy who can read through a textbook once, then slam a final into the dirt Hulk Hogan-style, you are more easily acclimated to taking intelligence-based tests. Like the information sponge you are, you grasp concepts easily while others struggle to recall equations, dates, etc.

BUT...if you're that person that can think "Ok, A means they'll go to dinner with me. B means that alcohol will be involved. So C is the probability at which I can score a trip to Pleasure Town, based upon the variable of date I am choosing", and make a good-call thereafter, logic is the avenue for you.

Because the LSATs and MCATs are testing candidates of two completely different professions, of COURSE they are going to be created differently. There are similarities, and there are differences. All in all, they assess who's going to make a bangin' doctor/lawyer. To those of us trying to claw our way to the top and get into the graduate schools, the test is going to seem daunting to us all--regardless of which one it is. It's a milestone. Feel free to pee your pants.

P.S. It WOULD suck balls to be a lawyer. Big, sweaty ones in desperate need of manscaping.

 

[RySerr21]

that question is definitely memorization..but you would be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 questions that easy on the real thing.

that question is not memorization. its possible from looking at so many chemistry problems you automatically recognize flourine as the most electronegative, but its not rote memorization. you could explain to someone the concept of electronegativity and the periodic trends w/o them ever seeing any of the names of the elements before hand and they would be able to get the question correct if you told them where each element was on the periodic table. thats completely different than someone memorizing "fluorine is the most electronegative element"

 

[pianola]

that question is not memorization. its possible from looking at so many chemistry problems you automatically recognize flourine as the most electronegative, but its not rote memorization. you could explain to someone the concept of electronegativity and the periodic trends w/o them ever seeing any of the names of the elements before hand and they would be able to get the question correct if you told them where each element was on the periodic table. thats completely different than someone memorizing "fluorine is the most electronegative element"

Yeah, there are two ways to solve the problem. I tend to feel like there's usually more than one way to get to an MCAT answer, in general. For me, it's almost always memory (for better or for worse).

 

[SupaManu]

The LSAT was fun, the MCAT was work. The LSAT is just a logic aptitude test. I took it without studying at all - 2 practice tests, and did very well."Harder" can also mean the effort put into getting ready for something, which I think the MCAT wins on hands down.

I agree, i kinda enjoyed taking the lsat, the games were interesting and fun, but if you know how to do attack them they are not very difficult.

 

[riverwoman1040]

I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that the LSAT is scored like the MCAT and the SAT. The score you get shows how well you did relative to other test takers. If, on average, the people taking the LSAT are smarter, then it's harder. Up for debate, but from personal experience I'm gonna go with no...

 

[riverwoman1040]

She took all the pre-med courses as an undergrad and said that with about 2-3 weeks of review she'd be able to do fairly well on the mcat. whereas on the lsat she said it would take her ALOT more practice to even get close to a 175-180

Also, saying this and doing it are very different things. You won't do well on the MCAT if you've just memorized things, the science sections require you to apply your knowledge, not just spit out facts. I did well enough to get into med school without having much memorized because you can reason your way through a lot of the questions.

 

[majik1213]

Before you start flaming. Hear me out...

The LSAT/SAT are logic based tests and the MCAT is knowledge based. Knowledge can be acquired over time through hard work and repetition whereas logic is much more innate. Therefore, can it be argued that a "Dumber" person can potentially do well on the MCAT while a smarter person will plateau on the SAT/LSAT?

To better further my argument, you see people increasing MCAT scores by 10-15 points all the time. Rarely do you see a 400 to 500 point increase on the SAT or a 10-15 point increase on the LSAT.

If you can improve your logic...how do you do it?

then is supposed to than in the title btw. lol

The bolded part of your quote is the exact opposite of the truth. The MCAT is a thinking exam with a slight emphasis on knowledge. True, to do well you must know your stuff, but the vast majority of information is introduced in the passages. The VR section is 100% critical reasoning and using outside information actually lowers your chances of getting the right answer (at times).

My PSAT score was 1000. my first SAT was 1250, the second was 1450. That's a 450 point increase. A similar trend occurred with the MCATS (from 19M to 35T)

To improve your logic, read a text book in logic and argumentation or take a course that covers things like outlining arguments, de morgan's rules, etc.

 

[majik1213]

well let me ask you guys this...are you more impressed with someone that can retain a vast amount of information or someone that can figure out a complex problem using deductive reasoning?

I only brought the subject up because my sister just took the last and got a 170 on it. She said she to a diagnostic cold 2 months prior to it and got a 166. About two weeks before the actual tests she was hitting 171/172. Her argument was that the LSAT was harder than the mcat...in fact, much harder. She took all the pre-med courses as an undergrad and said that with about 2-3 weeks of review she'd be able to do fairly well on the mcat. whereas on the lsat she said it would take her ALOT more practice to even get close to a 175-180

The latter is the obvious preference. But in figuring out the complex problem there exists an inherent assumption of at least some knowledge A weak example is reading skills required to read the problem, reading being a knowledge based skill. A strong example is knowledge of medicine in figuring out what a patient might have. As the problem is, according to you, complex, it could be an MCAT problem.

As for the LSAT, you have to understand that people have a lot of tastes and preferences. I was bored one night after studying for the MCAT and decided to take a break and do a LSAT because at the time my VR was weak (8). I did the free one and got a 164. The VR section on that exam is a joke compared to the cryptic VR section the MCAT makes. Well, lately I've improved on the VR so it isn't as bad as I had thought it was. But the point here is that tastes and preferences differ. I found that the LSATs answer choices seemed more distinguishable than the MCATs.

 

[atomi]

Before you start flaming. Hear me out...

The LSAT/SAT are logic based tests and the MCAT is knowledge based. Knowledge can be acquired over time through hard work and repetition whereas logic is much more innate. Therefore, can it be argued that a "Dumber" person can potentially do well on the MCAT while a smarter person will plateau on the SAT/LSAT?

To better further my argument, you see people increasing MCAT scores by 10-15 points all the time. Rarely do you see a 400 to 500 point increase on the SAT or a 10-15 point increase on the LSAT.

If you can improve your logic...how do you do it?

then is supposed to than in the title btw. lol

I've taken the MCAT, LSAT, GRE, and SAT.

In order of difficulty I would rank:

LSAT, MCAT, GRE Verbal, SAT, GRE Math

Yes, I think the LSAT was harder and much more intense than the MCAT. I think the fact that the MCAT was computer based made it much less intense. The preparation was more difficult for the MCAT in terms of the sheer amout of knowledge. But as to the amount of thinking required on the test, the LSAT was unquestionably tougher.

 

[kavorca]

I took the LSAT twice. No studying or exam prep and scored a 176 and 177. I studied for the MCAT extensively and never did near as well.

 

[barto123]

for people have taken the MCAT, i think we can all agree the difficulty is in the preparation for the test, the actual taking of the test is probably less stressful than the LSAT.

a funny thing ive heard several times on this forum is when non-medical people say they took the MCAT verbal section and get 12-13 on their one try and go ahead and claim the MCAT is a cake walk. Basically anyone can get a 12 or 13 randomly on a kaplan or PR practice tests which are easier than the actual exam. get 6 wrong out of 40 on the real test and you're probably down to a 10.

honestly i see little difference between a 30 and 35 on the MCAT. the difference is 1 maybe 2 questions in each section, which can easily be accounted for by luck.

for med school hitting below the 80th percentile on the MCAT and you will have a difficult time getting in. For law school hit the 50th percentile on the LSAT and some third rate law school will take you. but for the real deal law schools, top 10 or so, you'll probably have to hit the 90th percentile. I would compare the difficultly of getting into any US med school with getting into a top 30 law school.

 

[Raryn]

for people have taken the MCAT, i think we can all agree the difficulty is in the preparation for the test, the actual taking of the test is probably less stressful than the LSAT.

a funny thing ive heard several times on this forum is when non-medical people say they took the MCAT verbal section and get 12-13 on their one try and go ahead and claim the MCAT is a cake walk. Basically anyone can get a 12 or 13 randomly on a kaplan or PR practice tests which are easier than the actual exam. get 6 wrong out of 40 on the real test and you're probably down to a 10.

honestly i see little difference between a 30 and 35 on the MCAT. the difference is 1 maybe 2 questions in each section, which can easily be accounted for by luck.

for med school hitting below the 80th percentile on the MCAT and you will have a difficult time getting in. For law school hit the 50th percentile on the LSAT and some third rate law school will take you. but for the real deal law schools, top 10 or so, you'll probably have to hit the 90th percentile. I would compare the difficultly of getting into any US med school with getting into a top 30 law school.

You're wrong on just about every point. First of all, the only thing that makes the real thing harder than AAMC or Kaplan tests is stress. Kaplan bio sections are actually pretty damned hard. I'd say if you can pull off a 13 on the kaplan or AAMC verbals a few times, then you're gonna get about the same on the real thing.

The difference between a 30 and a 35 on the MCAT is pretty big as well. Not nearly as big as between a 35 and a 40, but its definitely not "1 or 2" questions. To go from 10 to 12 in one section, you need to do better by 6 or 7 questions, which is *huge.* Its a difference of 10%.

Finally, the 90th percentile on the LSAT is about a 164, and thats around the median admission stat for quite a few of the law schools around, not just the top 30. In fact, the top 30 probably want a 170 or more... The 50th percentile on the LSAT is ~150, and thats not very competitive at all.

 

[barto123]

You're wrong on just about every point. First of all, the only thing that makes the real thing harder than AAMC or Kaplan tests is stress. Kaplan bio sections are actually pretty damned hard. I'd say if you can pull off a 13 on the kaplan or AAMC verbals a few times, then you're gonna get about the same on the real thing.

The difference between a 30 and a 35 on the MCAT is pretty big as well. Not nearly as big as between a 35 and a 40, but its definitely not "1 or 2" questions. To go from 10 to 12 in one section, you need to do better by 6 or 7 questions, which is *huge.* Its a difference of 10%.

Finally, the 90th percentile on the LSAT is about a 164, and thats around the median admission stat for quite a few of the law schools around, not just the top 30. In fact, the top 30 probably want a 170 or more... The 50th percentile on the LSAT is ~150, and thats not very competitive at all.

hahaha, sorry to be harsh, but your ignorance is laughable. a 164 is actually right about the median score for a law school ranked about 20-30 (admitted i said 90th percentile will get you into a top ten, more like 95th percentile). in addition i did not say a 150 was competitive, rather that with that score you can still find a tier 4 law school to take you. getting a 170 or above is more than competitive for the top 5 to 10 law schools. i know because a close friend of mine has been entrenched in the law school application process for the past 6 months.

im guessing you havent taken the MCAT yet or any practice AAMC tests. On an aamc verbal exam, the difference between an 11 and a 13 is most often only two questions, like the MCAT itself. kaplan has a different curve. the aamc bio and physical sciences sections may have a slightly larger range between points but not much. youre probably thinking about the paper exam which had more questions and thus a larger range between points. thus to go from a 30 to a 35 means only about 2 questions per section. in my experience and the experience of many others, kaplan scores are often inflated.

 

[Raryn]

hahaha, sorry to be harsh, but your ignorance is laughable. a 164 is actually right about the median score for a law school ranked about 20-30 (admitted i said 90th percentile will get you into a top ten, more like 95th percentile). in addition i did not say a 150 was competitive, rather that with that score you can still find a tier 4 law school to take you. getting a 170 or above is more than competitive for the top 5 to 10 law schools. i know because a close friend of mine has been entrenched in the law school application process for the past 6 months.

im guessing you havent taken the MCAT yet or any practice AAMC tests. On an aamc verbal exam, the difference between an 11 and a 13 is most often only two questions, like the MCAT itself. kaplan has a different curve. the aamc bio and physical sciences sections may have a slightly larger range between points but not much. youre probably thinking about the paper exam which had more questions and thus a larger range between points. thus to go from a 30 to a 35 means only about 2 questions per section. in my experience and the experience of many others, kaplan scores are often inflated.

Its been a while since I looked into the law school stuff, but that doesnt really matter anyway. A tier 4 law school will not exactly get you a lucrative career as a lawyer.

But you're definitely dead wrong about the MCAT. I've taken all eight AAMC exams, and the real MCAT (admittedly, I dont have the real score back yet)
AAMC exam curves: http://www.e-mcat.com/info.aspx?cmd=score#_Scaled_Scores

The difference between an 11 and a 13 is never less than 3-4 questions. And the difference between 10 and 12, my initial example, is even more. And I fully agree that the real MCAT is scored similarly though, and that still leaves you wrong Now, the difference between a 13 and a 15 is usually only a few questions, but that just proves that the differences between the 40+ scores isnt so much.

 

[BerkeleyStudent]

hello goodbye

 

[MilkmanAl]

Necro-bump and obvious trolling all in one post, eh?

 

[Narmerguy]

As a physician, one has to be able to take a **** load of information and make split second applications of that knowledge in order to save someone's life.

Cut the crap not everyone plans to go into Emergency Medicine or Surgery. For many specialties this rarely happens.

Also, we seem to be equating difficulty with difficulty to improve. Which test is most difficult is very subjective. Part of the difficulty of MCATs comes from the fact that it requires specialized knowledge where as the LSATs require personal reasoning. However, given that you have a decent understanding of content to which MCATs pertain, it'll simply break down to which type of testing you do better at.

The argument about one using highly intensive logic while the other tests your memorizing faculties is not germane to the real subject. You can't equate difficulty of improvement with difficulty of the test, nor can you make blanket statements comparing the tests.

 

[parto123]

Whoa, I can't believe the stuff that I am reading. I'm not an MCAT expert or anything, but as someone who is in the process of studying for the LSAT and applying to law school I will say this much:
1) It is mainly an IQ test, some people improve with study, others don't. Most improve 5 points on average.
2) A 164 LSAT is a crappy score. In order to get into the T-14 law schools (top 14, the top), you need a 97th percentile+ score. You need 168+. For the very top 5, you need 99.5+.

A 150 is **** and BELOW average. I can't believe some of you are bragging about a putrid LSAT score....A 160 is nothing to brag about by the way, neither is a 164.

This is pretty much on point. Regardless of which exam is more “difficult”, law school admissions is very rigid in that if you don’t score in the 99th+ you have very little shot at the top 6 schools, and if you don’t score in the 96th+ you wont have much shot at the top 14. Heck there are even tier 2 schools (Cardozo, Brooklyn etc.) where if youre not scoring the 90th percentile its difficult to gain admissions.

Med school on the other hand has far more flexibility, and look at other factors. An applicant wont be an autoading from Harvard med simply because he score the 96th percentile on the MCAT. Not that its not almost impossible to get into Harvard med, but they at least disqualify you based on many other factors aside from just mcat.

 

[harposnarpo]

I scored much better on the MCAT than the SAT/ACT.

 

[gplex86]

This is pretty much on point. Regardless of which exam is more “difficult”, law school admissions is very rigid in that if you don’t score in the 99th+ you have very little shot at the top 6 schools, and if you don’t score in the 96th+ you wont have much shot at the top 14. Heck there are even tier 2 schools (Cardozo, Brooklyn etc.) where if youre not scoring the 90th percentile its difficult to gain admissions.

Med school on the other hand has far more flexibility, and look at other factors. An applicant wont be an autoading from Harvard med simply because he score the 96th percentile on the MCAT. Not that its not almost impossible to get into Harvard med, but they at least disqualify you based on many other factors aside from just mcat.

The reason why they do so much weeding out with the LSAT is that such weeding didn't occur in college classes. By contrast, by the time the MCAT rolls around, many people's dreams have already been shattered, and there's no reason to even take the admissions test.