What creates the discrepancy for those with high GPA but low MCAT?

[CupOfOodles]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Why do some individuals have high GPA but low MCAT?

Asking because this stems from my own experiences. I have a high GPA, and I've struggled with the MCAT a lot. I'd consider myself pretty good at a subject like chemistry based on grades where, in a class of 250-300 peers (didn't go to an ivy league, though my college is highly ranked...it's a school that is known for having competitive/weed-out atmosphere), I would consistently be among the top 5 or so individuals on the tests and get A+ in most every chemistry course (same for physics, though not quite as solid). I put in a decent amount of effort into classes, but I wasn't serious about school yet & didn't invest too much effort into my first 2 years of school for classes because I was pretty depressed/life events (not trying to be arrogant in any way, want to give an accurate description). I would not say I struggle with chemistry/physics on the MCAT. But I don't get higher than 129 (about 11 on old test I believe). I'm a non-traditional applicant (couple years out of college), so it's been many years since I've taken undergraduate courses. But even when I was younger and I first tried my hand on the old MCAT almost fresh out of college, I didn't do great and would still get around an 11 on the Physical Science section. Also, I'd consider myself a pretty solid/good test-taker and consistent.

The MCAT is very, very different from courses (far more research-based/reading, etc.), but I would have thought there would be some predictive value to grades. I'm partly curious and also looking to improve how I study in the future. I didn't study for the MCAT when I was taking my pre-reqs, so perhaps making time for standardized tests as I go through the actual content is something I'll emphasize in the future.

 

[MareNostrummm]

Why do some individuals have high GPA but low MCAT?

Asking because this stems from my own experiences. I have a high GPA, and I've struggled with the MCAT a lot. I'd consider myself pretty good at a subject like chemistry based on grades where, in a class of 250-300 peers (didn't go to an ivy league, though my college is highly ranked...it's a school that is known for having competitive/weed-out atmosphere), I would consistently be among the top 5 or so individuals on the tests and get A+ in most every chemistry course (same for physics, though not quite as solid). I put in a decent amount of effort into classes, but I wasn't serious about school yet & didn't invest too much effort into my first 2 years of school for classes because I was pretty depressed/life events (not trying to be arrogant in any way, want to give an accurate description). I would not say I struggle with chemistry/physics on the MCAT. But I don't get higher than 129 (about 11 on old test I believe). I'm a non-traditional applicant (couple years out of college), so it's been many years since I've taken undergraduate courses. But even when I was younger and I first tried my hand on the old MCAT almost fresh out of college, I didn't do great and would still get around an 11 on the Physical Science section. Also, I'd consider myself a pretty solid/good test-taker and consistent.

The MCAT is very, very different from courses (far more research-based/reading, etc.), but I would have thought there would be some predictive value to grades. I'm partly curious and also looking to improve how I study in the future. I didn't study for the MCAT when I was taking my pre-reqs, so perhaps making time for standardized tests as I go through the actual content is something I'll emphasize in the future.

129 is a great score... (129/129/129/129 across the board is competitive at every single MD school). The difference between a 131 and a 129 could come down to just 1 passage.

 

[trickydick]

Why do some individuals have high GPA but low MCAT?

Asking because this stems from my own experiences. I have a high GPA, and I've struggled with the MCAT a lot. I'd consider myself pretty good at a subject like chemistry based on grades where, in a class of 250-300 peers (didn't go to an ivy league, though my college is highly ranked...it's a school that is known for having competitive/weed-out atmosphere), I would consistently be among the top 5 or so individuals on the tests and get A+ in most every chemistry course (same for physics, though not quite as solid). I put in a decent amount of effort into classes, but I wasn't serious about school yet & didn't invest too much effort into my first 2 years of school for classes because I was pretty depressed/life events (not trying to be arrogant in any way, want to give an accurate description). I would not say I struggle with chemistry/physics on the MCAT. But I don't get higher than 129 (about 11 on old test I believe). I'm a non-traditional applicant (couple years out of college), so it's been many years since I've taken undergraduate courses. But even when I was younger and I first tried my hand on the old MCAT almost fresh out of college, I didn't do great and would still get around an 11 on the Physical Science section. Also, I'd consider myself a pretty solid/good test-taker and consistent.

The MCAT is very, very different from courses (far more research-based/reading, etc.), but I would have thought there would be some predictive value to grades. I'm partly curious and also looking to improve how I study in the future. I didn't study for the MCAT when I was taking my pre-reqs, so perhaps making time for standardized tests as I go through the actual content is something I'll emphasize in the future.

Of the people I know at my school, I've noticed a very strong correlation between GPA/MCAT.

Generally, the high GPA but low MCAT people tend to be those that transferred from a CC or transferred to a more prestigious school. Or took lots of AP classes but didn't do well enough on them to actually get credit for the given classes.

The low GPA but high MCAT people tend to be those that went to less competitive high schools or worked a lot during college.

As the one user alluded to, you are probably neither of these. You just haven't really taken the MCAT yet.

 

[DBC03]

I think part of it has to do with critical thinking and the ability to apply knowledge from different subjects in an unusual way. I have met siblings who took the MCAT recently. I had remarked that despite one of them doing significantly better in class, they would score the same. And they did. The one with an amazing memory couldn't necessarily think outside what was taught while the other had better introspection and insight. Those who score significantly higher on the MCAT may be able to get past a small lack of content knowledge, but content knowledge alone will not get students into the highest scores.

 

[efle]

Why do some individuals have high GPA but low MCAT?

The MCAT is very, very different from courses (far more research-based/reading, etc.)

You answered your own question. For classes, grades can be more about putting lots of effort into learning about a subject, and then doing a good job writing up what you learned / your thoughts on it. The MCAT is about answering a lot of shallow multiple-choice questions at high speed, and with few errors.

 

[Mad Jack]

The big issue with the MCAT is that it tests breadth of long-term knowledge and critical thinking skills. Many people can excel at one test, but then rapidly forget the body of knowledge post-test. You have to be able to both retain and utilize the information retained for MCAT success. There is also the issue of timing- I took the MCAT immediately after my prerequisites. Some people take the MCAT two years out from their prerequisites, which is really difficult as unused knowledge rapidly degrades.

 

[efle]

When you say some people take the MCAT two years after pre-reqs, you mean pre-reqs freshman and sophomore year then take MCAT senior year?

It's very common to have almost all your prereqs done during freshman and sophomore year, but then not take the MCAT until junior or senior spring depending on whether you are doing a gap year. So depending on what subject, people are often 1-3 years out from that class. Hence the test needing 100+ hours of review/prep for most people.

 

[•Syzygy•]

i would also like to add that a lot of people go to random no name schools and do really well there and then when it comes time for the MCAT they realize they don't actually know anything

in my opinion, its kind of unfair for every gpa to be made equal in the medical school process when they are very clearly not. the MCAT is the equalizer but gpa still seems to matter more

 

[chillingpanda]

I haven't taken the mcat yet, but everyone I know that has scored well on the mcat were great students with a competitive gpa. The only time I've seen someone with a low gpa and a high mcat is on this site, so it's definitely not the norm

 

[BombsAway]

Why do some individuals have high GPA but low MCAT?

Because I didn't put in the time/work. It's all turning out ok though.

 

[Mad Jack]

i would also like to add that a lot of people go to random no name schools and do really well there and then when it comes time for the MCAT they realize they don't actually know anything

in my opinion, its kind of unfair for every gpa to be made equal in the medical school process when they are very clearly not. the MCAT is the equalizer but gpa still seems to matter more

As a guy who went to some of those "no name" schools, gotta disagree that they are going to provide worse preparation. Hell, I was at the 96th percentile of test takers and took half of my prerequisites at a community college. What no name schools lack is consistency, not necessarily quality teaching. And grades at smaller institutions can actually be more unforgiving than elite institutions, at which grade inflation is often present to literally scandalous degrees. At a state school where there are 300 kids in a class and only 10% are allowed As, As can mean a great deal. Curves like that generally don't exist at elite schools outside of Princeton.

 

[Gurby]

As a guy who went to some of those "no name" schools, gotta disagree that they are going to provide worse preparation. Hell, I was at the 96th percentile of test takers and took half of my prerequisites at a community college.

It varies wildly though. I took OChem 2 at a community college after taking 1st semester at Harvard Extension (just had to knock out the requirement post-acceptance), and the CC class didn't cover anything I didn't already know until the last few weeks. I randomly guessed on all homework assignments, didn't study for tests and didn't pay attention in class, and ended the class with a final grade of 103% after scaling. I felt bad for the people who were trying to actually get an education.

 

[Mad Jack]

It varies wildly though. I took OChem 2 at a community college after taking 1st semester at Harvard Extension (just had to knock out the requirement post-acceptance), and the CC class didn't cover anything I didn't already know until the last few weeks. I randomly guessed on all homework assignments, didn't study for tests and didn't pay attention in class, and ended the class with a final grade of 103% after scaling. I felt bad for the people who were trying to actually get an education.

I'm actually pretty fortunate in that regard I guess. The community college I attended is regarded as one of the best in the country, and most of the professors teach at various universities in the area that have pretty decent to excellent reputations.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

In many ways the GPA is largely a measure of hard work and dedication, and the MCAT is largely inate reading comprehension ability and critical reasoning.

 

[Lawpy]

If you have a class of intelligent and hard working students who despite their stellar performance are graded down, it becomes increasingly difficult to get A's and thus a high GPA despite a lot of hard work. So innate intelligence functions as a stratifying metric separating high GPA students from average and low GPA students. But because these students still worked hard in very difficult courses, their own intelligence and critical thinking abilities improve, often significantly. This allows them to demolish standardized tests like the MCAT with ease, resulting in the awkward low GPA/high MCAT situation.

The above situation is rarer than the reverse high GPA/low MCAT situation, which is explained in a similar manner. Consider having a class of average or below average students who even with minimal performance readily gets A's and a high GPA. Because they got a high GPA so easily, they didn't have the opportunity to improve their critical thinking skills and thus do poorly on the MCAT. Unfortunately, this situation is common because the MCAT is generally a difficult test that requires quick, efficient and accurate comprehension and application of concepts to various scenarios. Those who are not good at standardized tests are especially affected.

 

[Lawpy]

I went to a highly ranked school where the classes are considered rigorous, competitive, and are known for weeding students out. I put in a decent amount of effort into my pre-reqs, but not a whole lot of time or energy to be honest because I was already doing well/was pretty depressed about other things that were happening in my life at the time (my fault I'll admit, I should have been more resilient). I was highly ranked in most every pre-req, particularly chemistry/physics (top 5%, I don't remember exactly since it's been a while but probably top 2-3% for the most part). But in a section like C/P, I can't push past 129 (about a 10/11) with hard work. My other subsection scores are weak too, so I was hoping to maximize C/P. Are there any other explanations? I'm asking because I'm not sure if something like this happens frequently or, should I go onto med school, I'll do alright in classes and then do poorly on Step. I doubt I'm a poor test-taker. I'm usually pretty calm and focused during tests. I don't have much to compare the MCAT to, but I've done very well on standardized tests in the past (SAT comes to mind, though the MCAT is definitely far more difficult than that).

The physics/chemistry section on the MCAT is a strange section that has little to do with how well you did in physics and chemistry courses. How are you faring overall?

The ideal plan of action is to master the CARS/verbal section and use the skills to attacks the science passages, since you are just reading the passages critically and answering the questions.

 

[•Syzygy•]

I went to a highly ranked school where the classes are considered rigorous, competitive, and are known for weeding students out. I put in a decent amount of effort into my pre-reqs, but not a whole lot of time or energy to be honest because I was already doing well/was pretty depressed about other things that were happening in my life at the time (my fault I'll admit, I should have been more resilient). I was highly ranked in most every pre-req, particularly chemistry/physics (top 5%, I don't remember exactly since it's been a while but probably top 2-3% for the most part). But in a section like C/P, I can't push past 129 (about a 10/11) with hard work. My other subsection scores are weak too, so I was hoping to maximize C/P. Are there any other explanations? I'm asking because I'm not sure if something like this happens frequently or, should I go onto med school, I'll do alright in classes and then do poorly on Step. I doubt I'm a poor test-taker. I'm usually pretty calm and focused during tests. I don't have much to compare the MCAT to, but I've done very well on standardized tests in the past (SAT comes to mind, though the MCAT is definitely far more difficult than that).

step 1 is an entirely different beast. i am not in medical school, but others have said the tests do not correlate well. as in, the mcat likes to take what you know and test you on it in strange ways while the step truly tests a foundation of knowledge you should have been building for 2 years. the step tests way more material but you can do well if you put in the work for 2 years. from what i understand at least, its not as unfair as the mcat tends to be at times

 

[efle]

I went to a highly ranked school where the classes are considered rigorous, competitive, and are known for weeding students out. I put in a decent amount of effort into my pre-reqs, but not a whole lot of time or energy to be honest because I was already doing well/was pretty depressed about other things that were happening in my life at the time (my fault I'll admit, I should have been more resilient). I was highly ranked in most every pre-req, particularly chemistry/physics (top 5%, I don't remember exactly since it's been a while but probably top 2-3% for the most part). But in a section like C/P, I can't push past 129 (about a 10/11) with hard work. My other subsection scores are weak too, so I was hoping to maximize C/P. Are there any other explanations? I'm asking because I'm not sure if something like this happens frequently or, should I go onto med school, I'll do alright in classes and then do poorly on Step. I doubt I'm a poor test-taker. I'm usually pretty calm and focused during tests. I don't have much to compare the MCAT to, but I've done very well on standardized tests in the past (SAT comes to mind, though the MCAT is definitely far more difficult than that).

A 129 is top ~8%, that's a solid score, not some kind of shockingly low performance. I have a bunch of GPA/MCAT data from WashU, which sounds like a similar undergrad to yours, and about 30% of the people with a 3.8-4.0 sGPA there still scored a ~34 or lower on the MCAT. You're not some kind of low outlier!

others have said the tests do not correlate well

they actually do correlate pretty well! predictive validity ~0.65 in the best meta-analysis I've ever found on the subject. That's for the old MCAT though, nobody that took the new MCAT has taken the step 1 yet.

 

[SLU Student]

I believe a disparity between the two is not uncommon, and I would explain it like this:

- GPA is descriptive of an individual's work ethic.
- MCAT reflects an individual's critical analysis and reading skills.

Anyone can obtain a great GPA through hard work. The majority of the science courses in college are based solely off of memorization. With enough time spent memorizing slides, anyone should be able to succeed. You may also be lucky and have a naturally good memory, so that may explain why this was a piece of cake for you.

On the other hand, while the MCAT also requires content review, the ability to critically think is more important here IMO. Some people are naturally good at this, while others developed this skill through years of reading literature or whatnot. The bottom line is content review can only get you so far, and the rest is up to you as a person, and how you developed or were born with critical thinking/reading skills. Individuals that score low on the MCAT most definitely lack this.

 

[•Syzygy•]

A 129 is top ~8%, that's a solid score, not some kind of shockingly low performance. I have a bunch of GPA/MCAT data from WashU, which sounds like a similar undergrad to yours, and about 30% of the people with a 3.8-4.0 sGPA there still scored a ~34 or lower on the MCAT. You're not some kind of low outlier!


they actually do correlate pretty well! predictive validity ~0.65 in the best meta-analysis I've ever found on the subject. That's for the old MCAT though, nobody that took the new MCAT has taken the step 1 yet.

well, of course those who are great at standardized tests will create some kind of positive correlation and those who don't do that well on the MCAT(not doing well isn't a 129 lol, maybe 125 or less on a section...) even with multiple attempts and a lot of studying will probably struggle with the boards as well, but for the people in the middle i think its harder to predict. id say there isnt a good way to predict that with simple statistics. i for one didn't study for as long or hard for the mcat as i plan to study for the step in the future, and its definitely true that consistent hard work pays off in the case of step 1 moreso than just being good at tests

 

[SLU Student]

well, of course those who are great at standardized tests will create some kind of positive correlation and those who don't do that well on the MCAT(not doing well isn't a 129 lol, maybe 125 or less on a section...) even with multiple attempts and a lot of studying will probably struggle with the boards as well, but for the people in the middle i think its harder to predict. id say there isnt a good way to predict that with simple statistics. i for one didn't study for as long or hard for the mcat as i plan to study for the step in the future, and it definitely true that hard work pays off in the case of step 1

A positive correlation is all we have to go off of. There's no way the MCAT can give us a causal relationship, so of course there will be caveats.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

they actually do correlate pretty well! predictive validity ~0.65 in the best meta-analysis I've ever found on the subject

Eh moderate at best honestly.

OP, it sounds like you need to work on your other sections. It appears you are trying to avoid fixing the real deficits you have (i.e. The other sections) by trying to improve on what could already be considered a strong point (i.e. A 129 which is top 8% in physical science).

 

[•Syzygy•]

A positive correlation is all we have to go off of. There's no way the MCAT can give us a causal relationship, so of course there will be caveats.

yes, and my overall point is that he was worried his 129 plateau on the mcat would not bode well for him when it comes time for the step, but shouldnt be because the only real correlation i can see between the two tests is that great test takers always do well on tests and people who struggled on the mcat(not his case) will struggle with the boards. he shouldn't be worried if he is top 8 percent in c/p. and on top of that, step 1 as i said rewards consistent hard work

 

[efle]

Eh moderate at best honestly.

it feels like it's moderate because we're used to basic science kinds of values closer to 1 than to 0.5. Within the world of standardized exams and academic predictive validity, 0.65 is fantastic. For example the combination of highschool GPA and SAT score has about a 0.6 predictive validity for first year collegiate GPA!

Or at least, it's high enough in the eyes of admissions to make them so much of the game

 

[summergirl]

I struggle a lot with school but got very high on the MCAT. For me personally, I am horrible at memorization, and when that is coupled with my constant procrastination, it resulted in my inability to do very well in my college classes. But for the MCAT, you need a relatively reasonable amount of foundation knowledge (which requires memorization), but most of the difficulty came from applying these knowledge in a logical fashion, which I am extremely good at. So I think it depends on where your strengths lie.

 

[efle]

For the WashU data, is it possible to determine what percent of people had a 3.8-4.0 sGPA that was around 29-31? I'm not in the 32-34 bracket, and there's a big difference.

Out of n=210

30-32: 20 people
27-29: 6 people

 

[futuremdforme]

Some people are better critical thinkers, which is heavily tested on the mcat in all sections. It's not just "which is false, a, b, c, or d?" There is also a huge difference between the criteria to get a high GPA depending on school. I know schools where someone could get a 4.0 and not crack 80th percentile on the MCAT. Also ability to read super fast.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm doing the equivalent of about 30 right now. I started off with around a 25 on my very first MCAT practice test with AAMC, and it's never really gone up that high. For a long time, I was getting averaging around 30 (this was years ago, I'm a non-traditional so this was when I first took the test). I've taken time away from the test, and I'm still at that 30 mark. It doesn't really budge. I got around 30 average before on practice tests, took the test, got a 29. Decided to apply anyway, did not fare well on application (0 interview invites, though I did apply very late and submitted secondaries even later, did not apply wisely, and was really just sloppy with my application because I was rushing). I'm also ORM and I currently live in a state that has a surplus of applicants.

If the 30 (or 508-509) is from the Princeton Review or Kaplan practice tests, that's actually a good score, since those tests are difficult and deflating (very hard to break 512). But you mentioned you got a 25 on an old AAMC a long time ago and got a 29 on the old exam, without much improvement years later.

Given your nontrad background, I wouldn't factor in your undergrad performance immediately, due to possible knowledge decay involved since graduation. Bumping from ~509 to upper 510s/520s range is a lot more difficult due to the nuances involved in the exam. At this point, scoring that high requires mastery of all concepts tested and strong critical thinking/analysis skills.

Consider taking a practice test under test conditions, score it, and review your answers throughly. A good review method is 7Sage Blind Review. Understanding the thought process on how to answer the questions correctly is a powerful skill that when mastered will help you score high. It's not easy and requires focused, consistent practice, but it's possible.

 

[BigRedBeta]

It's been mentioned in this thread that the MCAT is about critical thinking which is the biggest take home point. But a poor MCAT doesn't mean you lack critical thinking skills.

It's been about a decade since I taught for Kaplan, but I expect that the situation is similar with the new MCAT, and what I frequently saw there was that many people who were very smart but scored poorly is that they approached the exam as a test of their knowledge. They were convinced that if they just memorized the formulas a little better or could regurgitate the organic chemistry reactions faster that they would do better on the exam. And they frequently flat out refused to use the techniques for critical thinking that Kaplan preached because they weren't "reviewing the material". Again, I haven't seen the new MCAT, but the old MCAT was very self contained. Many of the answers you needed were in the passage and didn't require much outside knowledge at all. In fact a couple of the LSAT instructors that I knew who had taken only the minimum of science classes took an MCAT practice exam for fun and scored well above average because they were able to think critically.

Other things that impacted student's scores were being slow readers or getting tripped up by the time constraints. Fatigue was also a major concern (also seen on the ACT and SAT sections at the end of those exams). Other issues that make for poor test takers are poor question triage (if you have absolutely no clue to the answer, far better to guess quickly and move on to spend time on questions you have a better chance of figuring out), and a fixation on "checking work" and changing answers (particularly for a test like the MCAT where your prep time is in the range of months, you should have done enough prep work to determine your own patterns like how often you change right answers to wrong answers and vice versa, and if there were certain question types you struggled with - again, things that if you feel like it's a test of knowledge rather than critical thinking, you are likely to ignore for the sake of studying more content).

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

0.65 is fantastic.

Then why does every single paper on the matter only use terms like "moderate to low" whenever they write their summary?

 

[Afp0731]

I'm doing the equivalent of about 30 right now. I started off with around a 25 on my very first MCAT practice test with AAMC, and it's never really gone up that high. For a long time, I was getting averaging around 30 (this was years ago, I'm a non-traditional so this was when I first took the test). I've taken time away from the test, and I'm still at that 30 mark. It doesn't really budge. I got around 30 average before on practice tests, took the test, got a 29. Decided to apply anyway, did not fare well on application (0 interview invites, though I did apply very late and submitted secondaries even later, did not apply wisely, and was really just sloppy with my application because I was rushing). I'm also ORM and I currently live in a state that has a surplus of applicants.


I can get 129 at best on P/S. I'm usually doing 128 for P/S. So that's why I ask. I wish I could understand what's holding me back or how to overcome the plateau.

Got a 29 on the old mcat. Applied multiple times but never made it past wait lists due to a sub par GPA. Had to retake the mcat this summer bc that 29 expired while I was fixing my GPA. Could not break a 128 on P/S to save my life but ended up with a 129 on the real thing. When studying content, I learned topics thoroughly but I didn't periodically go back to reinforce my memory of the small details enough. When doing the FLs, I knew everything very well in a general/conceptual way but there were little forgotten details that were continually costing me points. In the week before my exam, I notecarded the crap out of all my weak points, made sure I knew all units, and ran through all P/S relevant aamc material(qpacks and section banks). I think it's easy to feel like you've plateaued at a score like 128 but jumping to higher scores at that point requires you to know absolutely everything in a very completely and detailed manner. Getting one extra question correct requires a lot more fluency when you're consistently around 50/59 than it does If you're around 40/59. Getting another few questions correct when you're at 129 requires that you barely make any silly mistakes or misread things which is another battle. Exercising before tests helped me a little with that but eliminating it altogether was something I didn't manage to accomplish.

 

[efle]

Then why does every single paper on the matter only use terms like "moderate to low" whenever they write their summary?

Do they? The AAMC themselves use 0.30 as the line for "medium effect" when advertising their fancy new Psych/Socio section. I guess you could double medium and still be medium though?

 

[efle]

Thanks. Is this info open access?

Yeah it's a table the prehealth office used to give out (not sure if they still do). Here it is as an image

 

[Lawpy]

Thanks, I scanned the 7Sage Blind Review. I already do aspects of what it recommends. There are other parts I might incorporate. (Had to take out the quote, SDN won't let me quote a link without having more likes I think)



How does someone who approaches the test as a critical thinking test normally approach passages/questions? For me, one of the difficulties is remembering the passage. I've taken both new and old tests. I think I could have pushed my old score of 29 up a bit with more solid preparation. The new MCAT is heavily research based (on a completely different level than the old test). For me, it is not easy to read a passage that contains completely new information on research areas that I have never really encountered before and retain the slightest details to then apply it to the questions themselves. This was much less of an issue for me with the old test because I think the old test was far less dependent on the passage. I don't know if I'm right though. I'm not a high scorer, so I may have a completely inaccurate perspective of these things.



Congrats on the improvement. I agree with your approach too.

Section Bank and ExamKrackers are good resources to practice with research-heavy science passages. Although personally, research-heavy passages can be treated like verbal passages. Understand what you're reading, analyze the figures/graphs, and answer the questions based on what findings/assumptions/conclusions the passage made + any concepts you learned from content review.

 

[•Syzygy•]

I hear so many people say that, but - how about my 132 CARS / 125 bio? Sincerely looking for tips here, since I expect I'll need to retake. I can't help but think that my problem is lack of content.

what did you use for bio?
it helps to be familiar with physiology for the bio section

 

[jazzmetal]

what did you use for bio?
it helps to be familiar with physiology for the bio section

EK, Berkeley Review, the Kaplan Biochem book, EK FLs, NextStep FLs, one Altius FL. Oh and all of the AAMC official prep material - perhaps to excess, since the content on my actual exam was nothing like the practice content - where were all my amino acid questions?! Or genetics? Maybe I just got an exam that played to all my weaknesses?

I did very thorough reviews of my practice tests but as I read somewhere else - a practice FL is like a scrimmage game. Yes, you need to do a few, but you also need to do a lot of drills. I don't think I did enough drilling. Also my intro biology courses were the first courses I took in my postbac and they were many years ago now. For whatever it's worth, I had no trouble with pacing or running out of time. I was extremely fatigued though; probably should have voided and signed right up for the next closest date.

I'm taking Physiology now, so it's good to hear that it will be valuable. I think I just need to use the official topic outline and really dig back into the content. If the MCAT is about reading comprehension, I think my problem is not being familiar enough with the language.

 

[efle]

thanks. What year was this data from?

gathered across 5 years from 2007-2011.

It looks like there's also a new hybrid table spanning 2012-2016 here, guess they switched to using percentile ranges instead of scores so they could show both the old MCAT and new MCAT in the same bins

 

[•Syzygy•]

EK, Berkeley Review, the Kaplan Biochem book, EK FLs, NextStep FLs, one Altius FL. Oh and all of the AAMC official prep material - perhaps to excess, since the content on my actual exam was nothing like the practice content - where were all my amino acid questions?! Or genetics? Maybe I just got an exam that played to all my weaknesses?

I did very thorough reviews of my practice tests but as I read somewhere else - a practice FL is like a scrimmage game. Yes, you need to do a few, but you also need to do a lot of drills. I don't think I did enough drilling. Also my intro biology courses were the first courses I took in my postbac and they were many years ago now. For whatever it's worth, I had no trouble with pacing or running out of time. I was extremely fatigued though; probably should have voided and signed right up for the next closest date.

I'm taking Physiology now, so it's good to hear that it will be valuable. I think I just need to use the official topic outline and really dig back into the content. If the MCAT is about reading comprehension, I think my problem is not being familiar enough with the language.

for one i think the section bank for biology was really good preparation for the bio section. apparently my test in July even repeated some passages (with different questions) from the bank. if you haven't already, i'd try to become very familiar with the way the section bank asks bio questions.

as for amino acids, i know how you feel lol. i feel as if amino acids are really tested more on the c/p section at times which has always been strange to me...

i always hit 128-130 on the bio section and i used EK though i think it was too barebones for bio. it was great for pretty much everything else though i used kaplan as well , and used kaplan only for psych and soc + khan. i only needed a review of bio as i am strong with bio.

you are right that often times it isnt what you know with the mcat but rather being familiar with the language of the mcat. i would recommend more practice tests and more review of those tests. you need to figure out where exactly your bio knowledge is lacking and then hit the content review at those areas, make flash cards etc. and yes physiology will help. some of the more advanced stuff i have seen is put in much better context if you have a background knowledge of basic physio

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Do they? The AAMC themselves use 0.30 as the line for "medium effect" when advertising their fancy new Psych/Socio section. I guess you could double medium and still be medium though?

Yeah I've never seen a paper that didn't say something to the effect of "low to moderate." Interestingly I've found a few papers that say that there is 0 correlation between Step 1 scores and clinical ability.

 

[jazzmetal]

Have you always been really good at reading comprehension (i.e. high verbal scores on SAT 1/subject tests, AP English portion, etc.)?

I can't comment on bio because I don't really do very well in it. But based on the content I've seen on my tests, it was also biochemistry & molecular bio heavy.

Lol, thanks for my very first like too! 🙂

Well, going into the way-way-back machine to my SATs, I was actually better at math (highest math score in my high school - woo hoo!) but then I did a lot more reading-type coursework in college. I've taken the LSAT and the GMAT and, yes, crushed verbal in both of those. So I guess yes, I've mastered the pure logical reasoning type of question: if it's in the four corners of the passage, I can figure it out.

I think that was the most frustrating thing about my MCAT bio performance - I didn't see many questions where I could reason my way to the answer. I just don't think I have the bio/biochem content down well enough. I agree that the practice materials made me expect to see a lot of biochem and molecular bio but I didn't see that much on the real test. Go figure.

You are welcome for your first like! When you are an SDN superstar, I can say I knew you when. 🙂

 

[jazzmetal]

for one i think the section bank for biology was really good preparation for the bio section. apparently my test in July even repeated some passages (with different questions) from the bank. if you haven't already, i'd try to become very familiar with the way the section bank asks bio questions.

as for amino acids, i know how you feel lol. i feel as if amino acids are really tested more on the c/p section at times which has always been strange to me...

i always hit 128-130 on the bio section and i used EK though i think it was too barebones for bio. it was great for pretty much everything else though i used kaplan as well , and used kaplan only for psych and soc + khan. i only needed a review of bio as i am strong with bio.

you are right that often times it isnt what you know with the mcat but rather being familiar with the language of the mcat. i would recommend more practice tests and more review of those tests. you need to figure out where exactly your bio knowledge is lacking and then hit the content review at those areas, make flash cards etc. and yes physiology will help. some of the more advanced stuff i have seen is put in much better context if you have a background knowledge of basic physio

Thanks for the feedback and tips! I did actually devour the Section Banks - maybe relying on them too much. I did a whole meta-analysis of them and decided that I was going to see amino acids on something like 37% of the questions... Nope! lol

Were you a bio major?

I think you're right, I need flashcards and more breadth. I guess I am just not good at memorizing the type of facts that bio requires. It's not like physics where you can reason your way through a lot of it. I am more of an algorithm/logic person. Maybe with lots and lots more practice, I will begin to see the logic of biology.

I'm glad to see the vote for Physio, too. I do wish I had taken it sooner - the textbook we are using now is answering so many questions for me! 🙂

 

[•Syzygy•]

Thanks for the feedback and tips! I did actually devour the Section Banks - maybe relying on them too much. I did a whole meta-analysis of them and decided that I was going to see amino acids on something like 37% of the questions... Nope! lol

Were you a bio major?

I think you're right, I need flashcards and more breadth. I guess I am just not good at memorizing the type of facts that bio requires. It's not like physics where you can reason your way through a lot of it. I am more of an algorithm/logic person. Maybe with lots and lots more practice, I will begin to see the logic of biology.

I'm glad to see the vote for Physio, too. I do wish I had taken it sooner - the textbook we are using now is answering so many questions for me! 🙂

I actually did a masters in medical science program so I took medical school level physiology, biochem etc and I also took physiology and biochem in undergrad. Basically, the bio section was cake with this kind of background lol. I wasn't a bio major though, economics actually.

I am jealous of your CARS ability! You have a gift since that section is always the toughest one to crack on the MCAT. I struggle to get above a 127 and I consider myself strong at verbal (>90th on GRE, SAT etc). CARS is just a different beast to me.

Practice is the way to go for a test like this. It sounds like you have the language of the bio section down (heavily experimental ie section bank), so now you just have to fill in those content holes.

 

[jazzmetal]

I actually did a masters in medical science program so I took medical school level physiology, biochem etc and I also took physiology and biochem in undergrad. Basically, the bio section was cake with this kind of background lol. I wasn't a bio major though, economics actually.

I am jealous of your CARS ability! You have a gift since that section is always the toughest one to crack on the MCAT. I struggle to get above a 127 and I consider myself strong at verbal (>90th on GRE, SAT etc). CARS is just a different beast to me.

Practice is the way to go for a test like this. It sounds like you have the language of the bio section down (heavily experimental ie section bank), so now you just have to fill in those content holes.

Thank you! Gosh, I think I am hijacking this thread but I really do appreciate all the feedback.

I wish I could figure out how to tutor CARS. I see so many SDNers struggling with it. I don't know if this would help, but - I think of it as a logic test, not a reading test. Consider looking at each passage as if you're a defense lawyer trying to poke holes in the prosecution's argument: look for the logical extension of the ideas in the passage (the things that do prove the case), and look out for answer choices that are true but not relevant (the things that a tricky prosecutor wants to fool the jury into believing). Also remember that everything you need to know is in the passage itself; be totally reactive; don't bring in your opinion or any outside knowledge. Think of yourself as a doctor taking a patient history - your job is to understand what *this* patient is saying, not some other patient with similar symptoms. It's all about the author's point of view. Lastly, I'll share that I take as much time as possible to fully immerse myself in a given passage, I do the questions in order, and then I move on. I don't pre-read the questions stems or highlight main ideas or anything like that. I sometimes will highlight proper names or dates for ease of reference in case I need them later, but I mostly just try to stay fully immersed and intensely focused on that one passage, reading slowly and methodically, and then weighing my first instincts on the answer very heavily. Oh, and I do also try to go back and pinpoint exactly where in the passage I am finding my justification for the answer I'm choosing (that last strategy comes from Berkeley Review).

I was an econ major too! I envy your med-school level physio and biochem, sounds like that helped you tremendously.

Are you applying this cycle? If so, good luck!

 

[altblue]

I haven't taken the mcat yet, but everyone I know that has scored well on the mcat were great students with a competitive gpa. The only time I've seen someone with a low gpa and a high mcat is on this site, so it's definitely not the norm

where'd you go to undergrad? at harder schools it's common for people with low-mid 3.0s to crack 80th with little effort and 90th if they actually study

 

[BigRedBeta]

How does someone who approaches the test as a critical thinking test normally approach passages/questions? For me, one of the difficulties is remembering the passage. I've taken both new and old tests. I think I could have pushed my old score of 29 up a bit with more solid preparation. The new MCAT is heavily research based (on a completely different level than the old test). For me, it is not easy to read a passage that contains completely new information on research areas that I have never really encountered before and retain the slightest details to then apply it to the questions themselves. This was much less of an issue for me with the old test because I think the old test was far less dependent on the passage. I don't know if I'm right though. I'm not a high scorer, so I may have a completely inaccurate perspective of these things.

You don't have to memorize the passage. And - which is hard for most high achievers - you dont' actually need to understand the whole passage either. This is another spot where many get caught up - trying to absorb all the information. While I don't recommend skipping to the questions first and then going back to the passage, it does belay the point that you only have to know the passage well enough to answer the question (although if you were running out of time, seeing the questions first then going to the passage is a reasonable rescue strategy). Kaplan preached developing passage maps - knowing where to find information quickly to answer the questions. If you know that paragraph 2 is where a certain theme is, then you spend less time searching for the answer. Reading the passage in total before seeing the questions is important to assess the passage as a whole. Many of the passages on the old exam had a few questions about the overall thrust of the passage, or required you to know what it was about and then apply new information they gave you in the question stem.

A passage map also doesn't have to be elaborate - it may be as simple as Paragraph 1: SDN is a forum for pre-health students. Paragraph 2: numbers/stats of board types and users. Paragraph 3: Author's hypothesis that SDN = helpful tool for pre-health students and Paragraph 4: SDN stereotypes. With barely 4 incomplete sentences I bet you can imagine what the passage might read like, and you would have a general idea of where to look for data that likely supported the idea that SDN helps students get into medical school.

 

[DBC03]

You don't have to memorize the passage. And - which is hard for most high achievers - you dont' actually need to understand the whole passage either. This is another spot where many get caught up - trying to absorb all the information. While I don't recommend skipping to the questions first and then going back to the passage, it does belay the point that you only have to know the passage well enough to answer the question (although if you were running out of time, seeing the questions first then going to the passage is a reasonable rescue strategy). Kaplan preached developing passage maps - knowing where to find information quickly to answer the questions. If you know that paragraph 2 is where a certain theme is, then you spend less time searching for the answer. Reading the passage in total before seeing the questions is important to assess the passage as a whole. Many of the passages on the old exam had a few questions about the overall thrust of the passage, or required you to know what it was about and then apply new information they gave you in the question stem.

A passage map also doesn't have to be elaborate - it may be as simple as Paragraph 1: SDN is a forum for pre-health students. Paragraph 2: numbers/stats of board types and users. Paragraph 3: Author's hypothesis that SDN = helpful tool for pre-health students and Paragraph 4: SDN stereotypes. With barely 4 incomplete sentences I bet you can imagine what the passage might read like, and you would have a general idea of where to look for data that likely supported the idea that SDN helps students get into medical school.

This is spot-on. I see a lot of students that try to skip reading the passage, but that trips them up. They may have some content memorized that is slightly different than what the passage (or experiment) says. So I tell them something very similar to what you say - read it, but don't dwell on it. Have a general understanding of what is in the passage (and where that information is) so you recognize if a question is asking you to interpret the passage or rely on memorized content only. I'm not big on memorization (Definitely not my strong suit), so I think I got a bit scrappy during the MCAT. There were times that proved better than relying on content memorization. If I couldn't remember something, I'd desperately search the passage and I often found what I needed there.