I've seen a lot of people w/ high scores who score low in this area, any idea why this is?
I heard they made the RC longer this year.
I heard they made the RC longer this year.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Why is everyone getting killed in Reading Comp?
Started by jackal head
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I would imagine the scores for RC fall into a pretty standard curve when you consider the large amount of people taking the PCAT. Overall I would say people who post on SDN seem to be more science oriented. They spend a lot of time focusing on other sections and underestimating the RC section.
I asked this question a while back and it seems a lot of people put off studying for RC because they "think" they're good readers from reading all their lives. The thing is you can be someone who loves to read and reads a whole lot, but that does not necessarily make you someone who is good at critically understanding what you just read.
I asked this question a while back and it seems a lot of people put off studying for RC because they "think" they're good readers from reading all their lives. The thing is you can be someone who loves to read and reads a whole lot, but that does not necessarily make you someone who is good at critically understanding what you just read.
I got around an 80 composite, but one of my lower scores was reading 55. My theory is that the norm group that pearson compares us to did really well on the reading part therefore it is harder to do good in that section as opposed to, say chem or math because people don't generally do well on those sections.
That's a good observation/hypothesis....I would certainly agree with you
I noticed that trend too...AND I fit into that category since I had a great PCAT and got worked in RC (37)...Had 3.5/3.5 in my essays too, so RC kinda made me feel I ride the short bus
I didn't do that great in RC on a practice test I did the other night. I feel like I'm a very solid reader/writer. I regularly read novels, collections of short stories, etc. I dunno, the questions and little reading excerpts are just worded in a way that is MEANT to confuse the reader. IE, if you really look at how they word sentences and how they tell the story, they make grammatical sense, but in my opinion, the sentences are worded in a confusing manner.
I guess you just have to read it carefully which should be a "given" anyway. I absolutely hate RC. Always have. Heck, who doesn't? But I just get that little "reading voice" going inside my mind and get through it.
I guess you just have to read it carefully which should be a "given" anyway. I absolutely hate RC. Always have. Heck, who doesn't? But I just get that little "reading voice" going inside my mind and get through it.
I agree. I also believe the standard deviation for some sections like RC is really, really small, which leads to compressed percentiles. If you look at some of the threads with numerical scores, that seems glaringly obvious, and can really hurt your percentile.
Agreed. Reading seems like it should be rather simple... we've had to read and understand our science notes for a long time in college. I read novels and scientific articles for pleasure yet my lowest score is always RC. 90 in verbal and 62 in RC doesn't make sense but apparently I cannot comprehend an author's purpose or distinguish fact from opinion.
Lol, same here. And some of options (or should I say, all?) are saddle. In the agony we are going to be in for those excruciating 4 hours, we won't be able to process every single question as if it was the only one. They say, trust your initial instinct as your brain retains and spits out information in ways that are hard to understand. But first reaction is usually the correct one.
I think that the verbal and reading comprehension are generally "easier" than bio, chem and the quantitative section (obviously not for those whose first language was not english).
Therefore, even if we do fairly well on the section, since everyone does fairly well we will have a lower percentile score. For example, if we answer 80% of the questions correctly in the reading comprehension and the quantitative sections, our percentiles would be a lot higher in the math vs the reading. (did that make sense).
This doesn't explain really, really low scores, but I think it explains why there is not a ton of extremely high ones.
Therefore, even if we do fairly well on the section, since everyone does fairly well we will have a lower percentile score. For example, if we answer 80% of the questions correctly in the reading comprehension and the quantitative sections, our percentiles would be a lot higher in the math vs the reading. (did that make sense).
This doesn't explain really, really low scores, but I think it explains why there is not a ton of extremely high ones.
They aren't written to confuse readers.... I found them straightforward. They are usually related to science or health, but ... like I said, there's usually one topic, and they talk about it from a certain view. Some of the questions however might be considered confusing or misleading.
This doesn't really explain anything. If everyone is doing TOO well on the reading, then all that means is that you are penalized more heavily for wrong answers. For example, on the bio section, if you get 2 questions wrong, then you might get a 95 percentile, but if you get 2 questions wrong on RC, then you might get a 85 percentile. But that implies that there are that many people getting all those questions right, meaning we should also be seeing some high scores.
Or stated in a different way, these are percentiles. If you got a 40% in RC, that means there is 60% of the population who did better than you. The scores ARE out there. They're just not on this forum.
I personally think people underestimate the reading section - they focus a lot more on bio and chem. Another problem is I think people OVERestimate their reading abilities. Reading a novel and appreciating the story or reading a science textbook and getting an A on your exam doesn't equate exactly to reading comprehension.
Here's my new theory since all scores are based on the 2007 exam. The mean for RC during 2007 was high maybe due to the fact the section was easier back then.
I'm just using theoretical numbers, but lets say in 2007 an 80% score was 35/40. That would mean anyone taking the test today would have to score 35/40 in order to hit the 80%. Since the scores are based on 2007, if everyone scored 35/40 then everyone would be top 80%. If everyone did badly then everyone would be scored badly since the mean is fixed to the 2007 scores.
I'm just using theoretical numbers, but lets say in 2007 an 80% score was 35/40. That would mean anyone taking the test today would have to score 35/40 in order to hit the 80%. Since the scores are based on 2007, if everyone scored 35/40 then everyone would be top 80%. If everyone did badly then everyone would be scored badly since the mean is fixed to the 2007 scores.
