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

Applying to Med School? Get In Or Your Money Back
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
goodbye
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
So this joker took a practice VR Section for the MCAT and thinks his knows the MCAT. That is laughably obtuse. The real MCAT Verbal Reasoning section is infinitely more difficult than anything I ever saw on a practice VR section while studying for the MCAT (I used ExamCrackers, Princeton Review and Kaplan). For instance take the most difficult passage in an VR practice, throw the rest out and then replace them with 7 or 8 equally difficult passages and you've got the REAL VR section for the REAL MCAT.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanihilist said:
So this joker took a practice VR Section for the MCAT and thinks his knows the MCAT. That is laughably obtuse. The real MCAT Verbal Reasoning section is infinitely more difficult than anything I ever saw on a practice VR section while studying for the MCAT (I used ExamCrackers, Princeton Review and Kaplan). For instance take the most difficult passage in an VR practice, throw the rest out and then replace them with 7 or 8 equally difficult passages and you've got the REAL VR section for the REAL MCAT.
Click to expand...

then you took a uniquely difficult exam. TPR, EK, and kaplan all jack up the difficulty of their passages so that the real VR section seems easier. I personally found TPR insanely difficult and AAMC to be not hard, but certainly tricky. I cannot stress enough how much the MCAT is statistically driven in terms of difficulty. If a lot of people get good at it, they WILL make it harder and harder until they recreate the curve they seek. And that is precisely why we are seeing a spread of opinions about the MCAT. Some said it was easy, others said it was hard. That's how it was designed: to effect a wide spread of scores.
 
majik1213 said:
then you took a uniquely difficult exam. TPR, EK, and kaplan all jack up the difficulty of their passages so that the real VR section seems easier. I personally found TPR insanely difficult and AAMC to be not hard, but certainly tricky. I cannot stress enough how much the MCAT is statistically driven in terms of difficulty. If a lot of people get good at it, they WILL make it harder and harder until they recreate the curve they seek. And that is precisely why we are seeing a spread of opinions about the MCAT. Some said it was easy, others said it was hard. That's how it was designed: to effect a wide spread of scores.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps some people are just overly dissembling and artificially inflate their ego with deluded anecdotes of how easy the test was.


I did stellar on the MCAT and I thought it was the hardest test I've ever taken hands down.
 
Thanihilist said:
So this joker took a practice VR Section for the MCAT and thinks his knows the MCAT. That is laughably obtuse. The real MCAT Verbal Reasoning section is infinitely more difficult than anything I ever saw on a practice VR section while studying for the MCAT (I used ExamCrackers, Princeton Review and Kaplan). For instance take the most difficult passage in an VR practice, throw the rest out and then replace them with 7 or 8 equally difficult passages and you've got the REAL VR section for the REAL MCAT.
Click to expand...

I don’t think people were saying VR isn’t difficult, just not as difficult as the LSAT. Id say this is true (more options, less time, more logical and analytic trickery). What makes the MCAT uniquely difficult are the science sections, and that it also includes a verbal section, so applicants need to be strong in both areas. Whereas in law school, applicants just need strong verbal/logic skills.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
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.
Click to expand...
90th percentile is 164 and 150 IS average. See my post earlier post:

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.
Click to expand...

But the thing to remember is, that 90th percentile for the MCAT is about 33, which makes a 33 approximately equivalent to a 164. The median accepted MCAT score at Harvard is a 37 (98th percentile) and at WashU is 38 (98.5th percentile). Looking good to make the LSAT appear harder right? One has to remember though, that the scale for the MCAT is extremely steep. The median accepted score for matriculants all allopathic schools last year was ~31 (82nd percentile). Its a respectable average either way...
 
yeah op, have u taken mcat?? i did improve by a whole lot on sat from my 1st practice test to the real thing... my reading comp was and still is weak. you can say it's "logic". well on sat there were also sentence completions and analogies which were pure memorization. sure a person who reads a lot could do well on those, but i did well on those just because i memorized most of the 3400dictionary words or whatever they were (i forgot them as soon as i was done with sat). not only that but i also spent very little time on those questions and so had more time for the reading comp section. on mcat verbal the passages are harder and there is nothing to help you. with all this, i must say that my mcat verbal probably isnt much better than sat. so you can say the difference is insignificant.

but as for math. i got 800M because there was nothing "logical" about it. it was just 7th grade material and while on practice tests i initially could not get 800m, with practice i got it. mcat tests 1st yr physics, ochem,etc. some of this stuff i was learning up untill the last minute. sure people exaggerate when they say that mcat "tests upper level science" but it is certainly not 7th grade material. i am still waiting for my scores but im sure i didnt get anywhere near perfect because it wasnt as automatic.
with all that, sure lsat or mcat verbal only requires more "logic" than mcat composite. but i am pretty sure that english and philosophy ph.d's would do better on those tests. and do i think that an english ph.d. is more prestigious than me? hell no.
 
I skipped to the last page so I may have missed a clarification by the OP, but if not . . . I've taken all three - even tutored for 2 of them. Comparing the SAT to the MCAT is borderline idiotic.

For the LSAT, LR can be taught to people and the verbal section is easier than the VR on the MCAT (for me at least). The analytical reasoning section is the only one worth comparing as this section can be difficult and (IMO) rewards talent - but a lot of the game types can be learned. Given, I was a math/econ major that loves game theory.

Still, the MCAT is much more difficult - no doubt in my mind.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
You're misinformed. The analytical reasoning section (it's called logic games) is the easiest to improve on. Most people start out doing the poorest in this section but improve dramatically. In fact this is perhaps the ONLY section in which people can improve. Most people never improve in Reading Comprehension: speed, attention to detail, ability to understand often convoluted verbiage is what gets you a good score. Logical Reasoning can be somewhat improved on, but oftentimes not. The average 5 point gain I was talking about earlier is primarily due to the improvement in the analytical section (aka logic games).
Click to expand...

I agree (that's why I said the logical games can be learned), but there's a cap (in my experience with people) on that section - if they don't have the hardware they often can't get new games with a high accuracy. I also agree that reading comp doesn't change much, but it's still easier than VR on the MCAT. The only disagreement between us is LR - I think it's possible for people to pick up points here with practice.

I didn't see your earlier post (I was lazy and skipped), but I would agree that the games are probably the easiest place to pick your score up quickly. From a score standpoint, I think it's like the PS section of the MCAT - easy to get your score up quickly, but you hit a ceiling rather quickly.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Maybe the LSAT is IQ based because many pre-law students aren't that bright?

I majored in English. I saw lots of them.
 
in terms of difficulty, from someone who has taken all four (sat/gre/lsat/mcat), the mcat is the most difficult. it has logic/critical reading elements, but you MUST know background information. you will only do so well on the MCAT if you don't know organic chemistry.

the LSAT & GRE/SAT math/quant are more measures of basic intelligence. Sure, it may be difficult to IMPROVE in logic games; however, it is quite possible to do well (>90%) having never seen an LSAT question before, while drinking and starting after a long day of work at 11pm. The fact that one can see big improvements in MCAT performance after learning physics does not make the test easier. An easy test is one in which a person CAN do well without preperation, regardless of how well people actually do.

(Sure, I guess you could derive all of physics/chem and bio empirically on the spot, but that's much more difficult that figuring out some silly logic game where the answer is by definition staring you in the face.)
 
the LSAT is like the party exam.... it plays while the MCAT is sitting at home studying all day and night.

the lsat seems way more fun to take. i have a set of TPR books for it and i go through it every now and again when i want a brain teaser.

the mcat was like getting pimp slapped for 3 months (studying for it), followed by a session of sodomy without proper lubrication (actual test day).


P.S. i have a set of LSAT TPR books for sale. brand new in box :p
 
nVictus said:
the LSAT is like the party exam.... it plays while the MCAT is sitting at home studying all day and night.

the lsat seems way more fun to take. i have a set of TPR books for it and i go through it every now and again when i want a brain teaser.

the mcat was like getting pimp slapped for 3 months (studying for it), followed by a session of sodomy without proper lubrication (actual test day).


P.S. i have a set of LSAT TPR books for sale. brand new in box :p
Click to expand...

I actually did enjoy the MCAT. But I like it rough.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
All I can say is 90th percentile on the LSAT is extremely insufficient to get into a good school, and if you score in the 82nd percentile you are definitely going to a Tier 2 school. Whoever scores a 90th percentile may go to a lower ranked Tier 1 school or possibly even a Tier 2. I don't know what the average ACCEPTED LSAT was, but it was certainly higher than 150 because about 60% of law applicants are accepted. (Yes, 40% of people who apply to law school are denied.) Also the average LSAT is 152, not 150.
Click to expand...

That 82nd percentile average is for all 126 US allopathic medical schools, not just top top 50 ("tier 1"). A good portion of the med schools (~40) have MCAT averages 33 or above (90th percentile plus).

And over 50% of people who apply to med schools are denied.
 
I don't think it is at all valid to compare how one scores on the SAT to how one scores on the MCAT or LSAT. On the SAT, you are being compared to everyone in the nation who thinks he or she sort of might want to go to college. On the MCAT or LSAT, you are competing against people who, for the vast majority, know what they want and have spent at least two or three years preparing themselves to grab it. I got an 800 on SAT verbal. I'm haven't yet broken 13 on the AAMC verbal, with a low of 11. Regardless of whether each test covers the same set of skills, individual performances tell you nothing about how difficult they are in comparison to one another.
 
This talk over 90th percentile being a "garbage" LSAT score led me to check out what the actual numbers are for these "best" law schools. Looking just at the top 25 law schools, I find seven for whom the 25th percentile for matriculated students it 162-163. That means a QUARTER of the students that get into these schools have less than 90th percentile, including UC Berkeley, ranked at #6. Such trends get more prevalent as you move down the list. (Info obtained from US News, since I have my subscription for the med school stuff)
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
I have a question for you guys: is med school similar to law school in that rankings and prestige matter? For example some people say that if you get into a low ranked law school, you shouldn't go as the costs outweigh the benefits.

Is it worth going from say U Penn undergrad to Podunk medical school? (I have heard that prestige doesn't matter as much in the medical field...)
Click to expand...

In my opinion- from what I have heard and seen from many medical doctors is that- going to a low tier medical school has minimal consequence. Top tier med schools get to see their students go into great residencies and get to learn a lot from the best and brightest. In theory, you get a *better education* and thus, will become a better doctor.

But for the average tier school, you’ll get your residency- provided it might not be the best- and you’ll come out with an MD and get hired just like the top and lower tier schools. Like they say- and MD is an MD (Same goes for DO) and the need for doctors are high in this country. So you will get hired- and you will make big bucks.

For the average person like me- I personally don’t mind going to a lower tier school, because where you graduate from- doesn’t really matter where you will end up.

Law school on the other hand is different. If you go to a prestigious university, you can guarantee great jobs coming your way from many law firms, on the other hand, if you go to a low tier law school, I can’t say the same.

The level of prestige matters in law. The level of prestige doesn’t matter in medicine.

Regarding, the debate of LSAT and MCAT, I personally think that it is harder to get into a top tier law school then any med school. Then again, I personally think it is a lot easier in GENERAL to get into law school then med school.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
That may be a reason, but...

What school did you go to? Because at Berkeley most students, except for maybe transfer students from community college and other crap schools, are bright and did pretty well on the SAT.

edit: Saw your profile. University of Michigan. Kind of perplexed as to why your GPA is a 3.44 then, since you majored in English.
Click to expand...

I majored in English and honors Biopsych, with a biology minor. Plus premed classes. I was a little busy, you know?

My major GPA in English and Biopsych were both above 3.7. However, many of my "hard" science classes were B's, which brought everything down. (obviously the med schools have already sanctified my grades, so I have nothing to prove here).

Most of our students come in with high SAT/ACT scores. But college admissions tests prove little, since most prospective premeds don't survive the weeder classes, let alone the MCAT and the whim of admissions committees.

Yet, I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence in the rigor of a humanities-only education. As smart as they may be, they sure as hell have a lot less to do with their time since they're able to party 4 nights a week.

To be honest, the workplace agrees with me on this.
 
Last edited:
i took the diagnostic LSAT from kaplan for fun, while i was falling asleep, and got in the 93rd percentile.

When i took the diagnostic MCAT, i got a 28.

QED?
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
As I explained in the other thread, Berkeley is the only T-14 school that prefers GPA over LSAT. If you are a non-URM applying to Berkeley you will NOT get in with a 163. My friend applied with a 3.99 and 163 and was rejected. Perhaps he would have gotten in if he were URM, despite Proposition 209. This is not the time or place to discuss Prop 209 though, so I won't mention it in future.

Most law schools openly use AA. General consensus is if you are white or Asian and you apply with a 163, you will NOT get into a t-14 school even if you have a 4.0.
Click to expand...

I call untrue. As the numbers show, 25%+ of their students score at/below the 90th percentile. They only have 4.3% African American, 1.4% American Indian, 4.1% Mexican American, and 4.9% other Hispanic students. Even if every single one of those students score below the 90th percentile, that still leaves a good portion of their class being "below average" Caucasians.

And theres 6 other schools in the top 25 that have 25th percentiles at 162-163, much less others in the top 50 (still "Tier 1").
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
I agree with you on the rigor, but humanities majors still get paid more than biology majors straight out of undergrad. Bio majors make one of the least salaries out of my undergrad. I was a Math/Econ major. Most of my peers in Econ (which some may consider humanities) ended up in I-banking or something to that extent with starting salaries (excluding bonuses) of 60,000+. Many others ended up in finance. Biology is I guess more rigorous than humanities, but not really worth it on its own. You pretty much have to go to med school because your employment prospects are even worse than most humanities.
Click to expand...

Not sure I totally agree here. Econ is a whole 'nother animal, which I really don't consider humanities.

Econ gets you jobs in economics. Biology gets you jobs in biological sciences and has great grad school prospects. A English or political science major, however, is basically screwed because the degree has zero direct job value. Law school's a fine route in that case, but I think any of us here with exceptional writing, analytical, and oratorical skills would be qualified for law with the right motivation and LSAT score.

Granted, these skills aren't always present in premeds. And I, for one, am staying FAR FAR away from lawyers.
 
Raryn said:
This talk over 90th percentile being a "garbage" LSAT score led me to check out what the actual numbers are for these "best" law schools. Looking just at the top 25 law schools, I find seven for whom the 25th percentile for matriculated students it 162-163. That means a QUARTER of the students that get into these schools have less than 90th percentile, including UC Berkeley, ranked at #6. Such trends get more prevalent as you move down the list. (Info obtained from US News, since I have my subscription for the med school stuff)
Click to expand...


25th percentile scores say little about admission chances. Applying to a top law school with an LSAT a bottom 25 percentile score or lower gives you almost no chance of being admitted unless you are a urm, legacy or have some extraordinary story.

Also, Berkeley is an aberration for 2 reasons- one, they don’t focus as much on LSAT as other schools since California banned racial preferences in admissions, and second, the past year it the first time it has been this high, only a few years ago it was #13.

Also, in law school there is no such thing as top 25. There is top 14, then schools for the most part become regional, with the better schools in bigger markets being more selective (fordham in ny, bu/bc in boston, gw in dc, ucla usc etc.)
 
thanks for kinda having my back BerkeleyStudent. I can't believe this thread is still going.

I honestly feel I don't need to respond to any of these posts as BerkeleyStudent has pretty much done it for me.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
Well according to some Econ is a humanities. Many engineers here pretty much think anything not in the hard sciences is a joke, including Bio and Econ. :rolleyes:

I think the feeder majors to law school are history, political science, and economics.
Click to expand...

Now hold on there for a second bud. I was with you till you started bashing econ. I don't know what your background in econ is, but, the models, theorizing and analyzing required in upper-level economics is quite interesting.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
No, I wasn't bashing. The eye roll was at the ignorance of engineers. I was a Math/Econ major in school, and well I met a lot of engineers that thought that non-engineering majors are useless. Eye-roll is for the engineers...lol.
Click to expand...

ah gotcha. looked over the eye-roll.

math w/ econ is probably the most financially rewarding dual-degree you can get. the advanced math coupled with economic modeling/forecasting could land you some hot jobs in i-banking. especially as a berk grad. good stuff.
 
Raryn said:
I call untrue. As the numbers show, 25%+ of their students score at/below the 90th percentile. They only have 4.3% African American, 1.4% American Indian, 4.1% Mexican American, and 4.9% other Hispanic students. Even if every single one of those students score below the 90th percentile, that still leaves a good portion of their class being "below average" Caucasians.

And theres 6 other schools in the top 25 that have 25th percentiles at 162-163, much less others in the top 50 (still "Tier 1").
Click to expand...


One thing to consider in how different med school admission is from top law school admission is that when applying to Harvard med, an applicant with a 37 MCAT wont have that much lower odds than an applicant with a 39, but if someone applies to Harvard law with a with a 171 he would probably have over 50% greater odds than someone with a 168.
 
BerkeleyStudent said:
Did you take both? Because your post insinuates that you haven't even taken the LSAT. If not--and I highly doubt you'd score a 170+ without preparation--then reserve your unsubstantiated comments for elsewhere.
Click to expand...

well the word "seems" pretty much states that i didnt take the LSAT. my unsubstantiated comments? where did i make those? i just said i did a few games from the LSAT review books and thought they were fun (like a party?). i didn't say one test was harder than the other. I just made a comment about my experience with taking the mcat

we get it, you love the LSAT. now stop being anal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
SAT restarted in Ivy League schools, is MCAT becoming more important? Could Step1 score come back?
Replies
41
Views
2K
Alejandro
A
hi.985
Downward then Upward GPA Trend?
Replies
2
Views
462
Goro
Goro
D
How to fill out AMCAS when I went to a school and then went back?
Replies
2
Views
348
deleted1056062
D
SpideyMD
Becoming a BSN/NP is harder than MD/DO
Replies
11
Views
2K
Splenda88
S
Plut0
Should I expect to hear back from late August secondaries?
Replies
3
Views
748
Goro
Goro
Top