VR improvement

[mdadventure101]

Question on VR experience... How do most peoples scores vary for VR between EK101, aamc tests and real thing? Any advice?

 

I am consistently scoring lower than I want to on the EK101 passages (6s and 7s), but haven't yet done the aamc tests. Any advice on how to get that little extra bump in score in a short amount of time (real MCAT in 1.3 weeks)? Would love to hear of anyone that improved their score over a short period of time and/or if the EK101 passages are actually just harder and you did fine on the actual MCAT!

[Exocytosis]

EKs harder but not that harder.

 

I'd start doing AAMC questions ASAP. Are you writing the 22nd? (If so, that's when I'll be writing too ). If you are this is a little late to start doing full length tests, but it might be a good idea to do just the verbal part of AAMC #3 (the free one) to see where you stand.

 

Also look into the AAMC's verbal self-assessment. It won't give you a scaled score (1-15) but it will give you a lot of practice (120 questions, best split over 3 days) and tell you what your weak areas are.

[Selstaar]

Question on VR experience... How do most peoples scores vary for VR between EK101, aamc tests and real thing? Any advice?

 

I am consistently scoring lower than I want to on the EK101 passages (6s and 7s), but haven't yet done the aamc tests. Any advice on how to get that little extra bump in score in a short amount of time (real MCAT in 1.3 weeks)? Would love to hear of anyone that improved their score over a short period of time and/or if the EK101 passages are actually just harder and you did fine on the actual MCAT!

 

I can't attest to the predictive validity of EK 101 tests - mostly because I haven't taken the MCAT yet, but also because I don't think anyone's come to any easily generalized conclusions about them - but I can tell you a bit about the AAMCs (which I have yet to take myself..Lol).

 

This little gem of a website says it all: http://www.studentdoc.com/practice-mcat.html.

 

And, it's actually supported by the AAMC literature. To spare you the trouble of going through the pdf on confidence intervals: it says that 70% of the time (barring confounding variables), your score on each of the individual sections should fall between +1 of your AAMC average. (For the entire test it's +2.

 

I think most people would agree that verbal's a section where practice and careful self-evaluation makes the difference. More details on where you feel your weaknesses lie would probably help responders help you better (e.g. not getting the bottom line of a passage; having trouble finishing or staying interested etc.).

[schmitty]

I did a couple EK as well as all the AAMC and all were 10-12 for VB and I got 12 on the real thing. So they are definitely at least somewhat predictive.

[MarshMellow]

EK 101 is def. the best. I found those tests/passages tougher than the actual AAMC ones which is a good way to prepare. I was getting 8-10's on the EK's and 11-13's on the AAMC's.

[viseguy]

I'm in the minority, but I think EK is vastly overrated. I often disagreed with the logic in their answers, and found the passage difficulty to be not representative of AAMC tests.

 

I did all 14 EK tests, and all AAMC tests, I scored 8-10 on EK (never got above 10), and 9-14 on AAMC tests. However there may be some bias, as the AAMC tests were done after completing all EK tests.

[BlurstOfTimes]

I did a handful of EK tests and all of the AAMC tests. Nothing beats the official AAMC tests, but I found EK to be pretty similar (though definitely not perfect). I generally scored in the 10-12 range on EK tests and 11-13 on AAMC tests, eventually ended up with a 13 on the real thing.

[BlessedSoul]

I don't know why everyone is saying EK was harder, but i felt AAMC was much more difficult simply because EK's passages were INTERESTING (BIG difference!). If they are interesting it's much faster to relate to and focus, whereas AAMC you need to focus 200% especially the humanities passages which are boring, long and hard. Just my opinion.