I was thinking about this the other night and I'm wondering if there might be any truth to the following theory: I've read a lot of posts about how the Kaplan tests are harder than the real thing and about how people improved their scores on the real one in comparison to all the Kaplan tests they had taken previously. It's also true that these tests are scored on a bell distribution that is made based on how everyone who took the test did on it. It seems reasonable to say that the pool of people that take the Kaplan tests is more competetive than the pool of people taking the real MCAT. The Kaplan score distributions are based on those students who took the test in the Kaplan review course, and it seems that the more dedicated students would be those enrolled in these classes. People who care enough to study, take a class, or check out this board every day are on average, above average. I haven't seen any posts by people who are scoring 4's and 5's, but in theory, there should be just as many in this catagory as there are scoring 11's and 12's. The people with these low scores are those who just take it to try it out or get the feel for it without investing much into it, surely not spending $1300 for a Kaplan course. So is there any possibility that this could help explain why people's scores tend to be better on the real test? If anyone has any thoughts or knows how this works any better than I do, your input would be greatly appreciated. (The other possibility is that just as many people got lower scores on the real thing, but the people who improved are more willing to tell about it.) Let me know what you think!