Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Law's WS Tips


The Law

Recommended Posts

People have been PMing me asking me for tips on the WS section. I thought I'd post this instead instead of replying to each PM separately since I've been really busy in the lab lately. Sorry if it's taken me a long time to reply to any of you, I've been very swamped with work.

 

I think in order to do well in the WS section, one of the key components is understanding what the AAMC is looking for. To do that, you need to read on the AAMC website the section on how to prepare for the writing sample prompt.

 

Before anything, the crucial goal of any MCAT essay is to address all three tasks. That is:

 

1. Explain what the statement means and when the statement is applicable.

2. Explain when the statement may not necessarily be true and why.

3. Compare these two situations and identify the crucial elements that may lead one to decide when the statement is true and when the statement is not true.

 

If you do not do all 3 of these tasks, you will instantly receive a bad score. If you check out the AAMC website, you will see all essays that receive a decent score have as a marking criteria that all 3 of these tasks are accomplished.

 

Now, besides addressing all 3 tasks - which is your primary goal - you should also read the AAMC website on how to prepare for the writing sample section. Reading this will give you some insight into the finer nuances of writing an essay that exceeds expectations and allows you to be in the upper echelon of MCAT WS scores.

 

Here is the current link: http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/preparing/wsprep.htm

 

The main points from the website are these:

The better essays thoroughly explore the meaning and implications of the given statement. Complex terms appearing in the statement are defined. Generalizations are supported with illustrative examples. Word choice and sentence construction accurately convey the intended meaning. And, as noted earlier, the three writing tasks are addressed.

 

What does this mean? This makes it clear that the AAMC is looking for a thorough analysis of the prompt. They don't want a simple A, B, C listing of when the statement is true vs when it's not. They want to see that you can really think about the issue. Pretend that this issue is a very important one to you. Think about all possible angles that you can present your argument from. Yes, your key goal is addressing when the statement is true, not true, and then what decides whether it's true vs not... but while you are doing this think about questions such as, how does this example relate to society as a whole? When you make statements, do not make blunt and terse statements, but take the time to fully explore each issue. Be careful when you are making statements, to show them that you are fully analyzing the issue and appreciate the two sides to the argument (kind of like in medical school interviews, how you try to balance both sides of an ethical question that may come up).

 

Furthermore, it says the following:

 

Since there is no answer key for the Writing Sample to let you know how you are doing, you should ask yourself some of the following questions:

 

* Does the essay have a clear direction that is established early and that leads logically to a clearly defined conclusion?

* Does the essay have three separate parts corresponding to the three tasks or does it hold together as a whole?

* Are the parts linked?

* Does the paper have a consistent point of view?

* Are generalizations supported?

* Have the standard rules of grammar, syntax, and punctuation been observed?

* Are the sentences and paragraphs typical of a high school writer, or do they reflect the vocabulary and complexity of thinking expected of a collegiate writer?

 

Think about each of these statements. Are you transitioning well? Are you building up a theme when you are writing? Are you thinking of examples to support your claims?

 

In general, when I get a WS prompt this is how I work:

1. READ THE PROMPT CAREFULLY and see what it specifically states are the 3 tasks.

2. Generate examples supporting the prompt. Generate examples against the prompt.

3. Consider these examples. What is it that is different from these examples? What distinguishes them from each other? Can you come up with a theme that you can address when writing each of these points? Really think about how they differ because this is forming the basis of your entire essay.

4. Be careful:

-Not to make blunt or terse statements, but instead, show that you are aware of the finer details of each issue. Think about each issue very carefully and think how it applies to your theme and how it relates to the big picture. For instance, if your topic is about politics, perhaps you can relate your statements to society, if your topic is on education, maybe you can compare it to things related to this field... etc.

5. Do task 1, task 2, and task 3 keeping all of these things in mind while you are writing.

 

Example prompt: In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same.

1. Generate examples.

Task One: Explain: What does the statement mean? When is it true?

These are the type of things I would jot down while brainstorming:

When are friends your enemies in politics? Well, off the top of my head, I can think about when people from the same party are vying for a nomination. For example, Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama for the US presidential nomination in 2008. Athough both of them have similar political ideologies, they fought a very aggressive campaign against each other... criticizing each other and even creating bitter divisions between their supporters in the party. One would probably think that this makes them enemies... but it's clear as well that in order for the party to be successful it would have to be united. Barack Obama extended an offer to Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. He has a very ambitious international agenda and trusted her enough to be the person to get the changes he was seeking accomplished.

 

So in general, we see a theme: Even when people share similar political idealogies, competition in a party may have to occur in the political process and can turn people who are ordinarily friends into enemies - even if it is temporary. This is just the nature of the political process and to support the prompt, you can highlight the work Clinton and Obama have managed to accomplish together (friend side) while also demonstrating the competition earlier on (enemy side). To make it EVEN better, you can also comment on how this competition leads to better candidates in the political process (since candidates are being analyzed so intensely by the party) or may also lead to party breakdown if the party stays bitterly divided - this is a thorough analysis of the issue. You aren't just making blunt statements, but really exploring each side of the prompt and the big picture of each statement.

 

Task Two: When is the statement not true?

Specifically the prompt had stated: Describe a specific political situation in which one's friends and one's enemies might not be the same.

 

Here is what I would brainstorm:

Sometimes idealogical divides between people may prevent them from being able to cooperate on certain issues... for instance, you can talk about differences between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama (there are so many): issues like abortion, homosexuality in the military, weaponization of space and nuclear proliferation... these issues are crucial to each of these candidates and they are very divided on what needs to be done on these fronts.

 

To really examine the issue, consider how this applies in real life. Health care reform: Republicans basically universally voted against it. Differences in idealogy may make it clear what kind of political policies a politican will support. Some socially-conservative democrats were going to vote against it, but when changes to the abortion part of the law were made, decided to vote for it - this highlights that people with similar idealogies are more likely to try to cooperate with each other.

 

 

Task 3: What are the differences between the two situations:

1. People who have similar idealogies may have to compete against each other. This can make people both friends and enemies. Both people NEED each other, but also must compete against each other. Obama vs clinton clearly higlights this.

 

2. People with extreme political differences are unlikely to cooperate and are clear opponents in politics. Palin vs Obama example.

So overall, considering each of these differences... it's the nature of the competition (is it an election? are they being forced to compete for one spot?), the degree that the candidates can use each other to further their political agendas (democrats helping democrats pass health care reform, clinton helping obama as secreatry of state), and the similarities and differences in idealogy that will decide whether or not politicans are enemies or friends.

 

Hope this helps people get some insight into how I prepare when I see a prompt. Understanding current events, reading newspapers and articles about random things really helps in this section because it gives you an army of examples that will help you shape the prompt that you want. Remember, don't get scared by vague prompts. There is no right or wrong answer. All the power is in your hands, the examples you can generate (I've even used examples from movies in the past, or hypothetical situations), and how you can formulate your thoughts in a coherent manner.

 

 

Note: I'm too lazy to proofread this post, so don't mind the typos or terrible grammar.

I'll try to edit and improve this later, but at least it's something for the people who needed help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great advice

 

An additional note for the 3rd point (Compare these two situations and identify the crucial elements that may lead one to decide when the statement is true and when the statement is not true)

 

For this part of the essay, I would come up with a generalizable rule of thumb to sum up when the prompt was true and when it wasn't. By doing this, it allowed me to finalize my essay well enough (by iterating why example A and counterexample B are justified), as well as allowing the essay to close on a proper note.

 

But I pretty much followed what Law has said (make sure you read the examples on the e-mcat site), and I got S's on my WS's

 

There was another thread on here that I used as a guide on the WS (gotta search for it, but it is on PM101), and there essay critique is a great way to see how you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...