tbr ochem passages

[echoyjeff222]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How hard are these relative to the real thing? I am whizzing through them (partly because I just took ochem) -- but I don't want to get too cocky. Are they a lot easier than the real thing?

 

[csx]

I am unsure which edition you are doing. But the one I'm doing I feel like it's easy too (knock on wood). Compared to the TBR gchem/physics/bio this is a joke.

I'm curious what others have to say as well.

 

[Jason12]

its pretty similar to real thing, I've actually encountered a few passages in my AAMC practice tests that had almost exact questions from TBR but worded differently .... having said that, Ive been scoring 100% on orgo on AAMC tests having only done 5 passages per chapter

 

[csx]

its pretty similar to real thing, I've actually encountered a few passages in my AAMC practice tests that had almost exact questions from TBR but worded differently .... having said that, Ive been scoring 100% on orgo on AAMC tests having only done 5 passages per chapter

Why do people dread the ochem sections/pray that they are kept to a minimum so much then...?

 

[RC4L]

I took the MCAT 3 times and I found the TBR ochem books to be a waste of time. Obviously it would be advantageous to know ochem as well as possible but the amount of time it would take to cover everything as thoroughly as tbr does would take away valuable time from more important subjects. I used the EK book and TPR when I felt I needed a more thorough explanation and that worked just fine. I can't recall seeing any ochem on the MCAT outside of stereochem, SN1/2/E1/2, nomenclature, basic rxns, lab techniques, and IR(always). I also took the MCAT two years and change after my undergrad ochems so I was pretty rusty on it but I still felt the tbr ochem to be too in depth. I actually felt that my ochem 2 lab class was more helpful for MCAT purposes than anything.

 

[Jason12]

Why do people dread the ochem sections/pray that they are kept to a minimum so much then...?

I agree with the post above, dont pay too much attention to the details, rather think about the overall/conceptual of way, take the self assessment and see your weaknesses then do as much as practice on your weaknesses until you feel confident

 

[csx]

I took the MCAT 3 times and I found the TBR ochem books to be a waste of time. Obviously it would be advantageous to know ochem as well as possible but the amount of time it would take to cover everything as thoroughly as tbr does would take away valuable time from more important subjects. I used the EK book and TPR when I felt I needed a more thorough explanation and that worked just fine. I can't recall seeing any ochem on the MCAT outside of stereochem, SN1/2/E1/2, nomenclature, basic rxns, lab techniques, and IR(always). I also took the MCAT two years and change after my undergrad ochems so I was pretty rusty on it but I still felt the tbr ochem to be too in depth. I actually felt that my ochem 2 lab class was more helpful for MCAT purposes than anything.

How is TPR physics?
What kind of IR/Lab tech's? I literally know nothing about lab techs haha

 

[Sed8&Intub8]

I took the MCAT 3 times and I found the TBR ochem books to be a waste of time. Obviously it would be advantageous to know ochem as well as possible but the amount of time it would take to cover everything as thoroughly as tbr does would take away valuable time from more important subjects. I used the EK book and TPR when I felt I needed a more thorough explanation and that worked just fine. I can't recall seeing any ochem on the MCAT outside of stereochem, SN1/2/E1/2, nomenclature, basic rxns, lab techniques, and IR(always). I also took the MCAT two years and change after my undergrad ochems so I was pretty rusty on it but I still felt the tbr ochem to be too in depth. I actually felt that my ochem 2 lab class was more helpful for MCAT purposes than anything.

I took the MCAT a few years ago with the same logic. However, there was this one passage where you basically had to know multiple reactions, not just the basic one. It was a flow chart with 10 boxes, only 2 of the boxes had a structure. The passage basically described nothing, it was just saying something along the lines that a chemist is synthesizing...and here is the process. The flow chart had the first box empty, then it showed the solvents and showed the second structure, and the question was like what is the structure that it started with. Then it continued, it would give you solvents, blank box, solvents, blank box, question marks for solvent, then structure, blank box, etc. And all the questions were like what is structure E, what are solvents to get G. Etc. I was blown away, I had not even dealt with something that hard in organic class.

However, I think that was just an exception. In all the AAMC practice exams the organic is pretty basic. So, you probably only need to know the basics, but you never know...

 

[Sed8&Intub8]

How is TPR physics?
What kind of IR/Lab tech's? I literally know nothing about lab techs haha

TPR physics is pretty nice. I prefer TBR Physics for all subjects except I prefer TPR physics for electrostatics and magnetism.

For lab techs just read the TBR ochem chapter 8, it's pretty good. You should know the shift values for IR, NMR, UV, you should know the basic mechanism of those process. Like what is the IR showing you, what is actually happening to give you the stretches, etc. Know what integration means, what would make an NMR give you higher shift values, etc. Know gel blotting and electrophoresis, simple and fractional distillation, TLC, gas chromatography, PCR, etc, so understand how they work, what they show, how they are done, and how they can be valuable.

 

[orangetea]

I took the MCAT a few years ago with the same logic. However, there was this one passage where you basically had to know multiple reactions, not just the basic one. It was a flow chart with 10 boxes, only 2 of the boxes had a structure. The passage basically described nothing, it was just saying something along the lines that a chemist is synthesizing...and here is the process. The flow chart had the first box empty, then it showed the solvents and showed the second structure, and the question was like what is the structure that it started with. Then it continued, it would give you solvents, blank box, solvents, blank box, question marks for solvent, then structure, blank box, etc. And all the questions were like what is structure E, what are solvents to get G. Etc. I was blown away, I had not even dealt with something that hard in organic class.

However, I think that was just an exception. In all the AAMC practice exams the organic is pretty basic. So, you probably only need to know the basics, but you never know...

this makes me sad 🙁

 

[RC4L]

How is TPR physics?
What kind of IR/Lab tech's? I literally know nothing about lab techs haha

I really liked TPR physics(and chem)! It was extremely thorough without getting too detailed and it had a great math section in the back. Lab techniques are pretty basic and would be things like simple distillations, blotting, extractions, purification methods, etc. The IR is really common on the MCAT! Know at what point particular groups show up on the line spectrum like carbonyl groups at 1700 or be able to know how many hydrogen atoms are in a molecule from an NMR graph.

 

[RC4L]

I took the MCAT a few years ago with the same logic. However, there was this one passage where you basically had to know multiple reactions, not just the basic one. It was a flow chart with 10 boxes, only 2 of the boxes had a structure. The passage basically described nothing, it was just saying something along the lines that a chemist is synthesizing...and here is the process. The flow chart had the first box empty, then it showed the solvents and showed the second structure, and the question was like what is the structure that it started with. Then it continued, it would give you solvents, blank box, solvents, blank box, question marks for solvent, then structure, blank box, etc. And all the questions were like what is structure E, what are solvents to get G. Etc. I was blown away, I had not even dealt with something that hard in organic class.

However, I think that was just an exception. In all the AAMC practice exams the organic is pretty basic. So, you probably only need to know the basics, but you never know...

I recall having a passage exactly like that as well. The trick with those is to eliminate as much as possible with basic concepts because they are most likely trying to test something simple with something that looks very complicated. For instance if the unknown is mixed with a base vs an acid, you should be able to use substitution/elimination laws to narrow down your options. Look for obvious errors in the answers like an extra carbon or an extra double bond because they are very easy to overlook. Even with a good understanding of gen chem you should be able to know what conditions allow molecules to undergo reactions. Those types of passages will also make a lot of sense if you've had an ochem lab under your belt. To be more specific there are a handful of rxns commonly used in those labs such as use of Grignard reagents, aldol condensations, diels alder, wittig, etc. All of those are covered in any MCAT ochem prep book and are pretty general.

 

[RC4L]

this makes me sad 🙁

The MCAT frequently has passages containing material outside the scope of what is actually being tested. The biggest challenge with those is more than likely going to be remaining calm and searching through the clutter to find basic discrepancies rather than having a textbook knowledge of the subject. When I encountered a crazy passage in practice and in the real thing I would stop and assure myself that the more intense it appeared to be, the more simple the answer likely was and it often proved to be true. Those passages will also feel easier if you focus on eliminating rather than validating a correct answer. There is no difference between knowing one answer choice is correct and that three answer choices are wrong, the latter being much easier! If you know the EK ochem book well and you use it wisely you should be able to get through ochem just fine.

 

[lNVlNClBLE]

Why do people dread the ochem sections/pray that they are kept to a minimum so much then...?

Probably because they haven't yet taken Ochem / memorized their way through it.

For the most part, MCAT Ochem is extremely simple. And there isn't even that much of it. Now, the extremely difficult Ochem passages are probably some of the hardest passages that can exist on an exam, but they're few and far between.

 

[csx]

Probably because they haven't yet taken Ochem / memorized their way through it.

For the most part, MCAT Ochem is extremely simple. And there isn't even that much of it. Now, the extremely difficult Ochem passages are probably some of the hardest passages that can exist on an exam, but they're few and far between.

In which case most people will be forced to guess which in turn would 'curve' the test so it shouldnt really matter much, correct?

 

[sharkbyte]

Hey guys - it looks like a lot of the recent MCAT PS sections have been really difficult according to most people and one of my friends who took a recent MCAT said the physics on it in particular was harder and more different than any MCAT prep physics he's ever seen.

I know that he's a little neurotic and had just taken the exam but in light of this, what type of materials correlate most well to what you'll probably see on the real thing? I'm getting the feeling that even TBR/TPR won't be as accurate. Is it the self-assessments and later AAMCs that have the most representative PS sections? Would really appreciate any input. Thanks

 

[orangetea]

Hey guys - it looks like a lot of the recent MCAT PS sections have been really difficult according to most people and one of my friends who took a recent MCAT said the physics on it in particular was harder and more different than any MCAT prep physics he's ever seen.

I know that he's a little neurotic and had just taken the exam but in light of this, what type of materials correlate most well to what you'll probably see on the real thing? I'm getting the feeling that even TBR/TPR won't be as accurate. Is it the self-assessments and later AAMCs that have the most representative PS sections? Would really appreciate any input. Thanks

I've heard the GS tests come close as far as the calculations are based but here is my opinion and others can agree/disagree but the reason the PS or BS section might seem "difficult" is because it's not difficult it's "different". The MCAT (from my one and only time taking it) brings very new concepts that might not have appeared in our TBR PS book and asks you to relate what you do know to it. So you can do 500 projectile problems but if you don't know WHY at the apex a=g then anything that manipulates that concept will be difficult.

that was just my two cents happy studying everyone 🙂