Science Submitted For Your Peer Review
posted by April 2 at 11:55 AM
onMCAT Preparation Using The Stranger Enhances Verbal Reasoning Scores
Jonathan Golob(1)
(1) Institute for Advanced Pre-Medical Education
Abstract
Preparation for the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) verbal reasoning section is a frequent source of frustration for prospective medical students. Practice passages are of hideous quality, leading to despair. In these experiments we applied a passage from a recent edition of The Stranger to a study system for the MCAT. The test scores on standard practice passages significantly improved (from 44.2% to 88.4%; p < 0.05) for a study subject subjected to Stranger writing. These findings provide hope for pre-medical students everywhere and are likely to have a major impact on medical admission practices and standards.
Introduction and Background
The Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) is the primary standardized test used for medical school admissions. The verbal reasoning section of the MCAT is comprised of a series of gruesomely written passages on various subject followed by approximately a dozen inane questions about the passage. The abominable quality of the writing in conjunction with the subjective nature of the questioning makes this section a frequent source of distress for hopeful pre-medical students everywhere.
Methods and Materials
A pre-medical volunteer read and answered questions from two standard MCAT Verbal Reasoning section practice passages (Kaplan). After a short break with coffee and butter cookies (Uptown Expresso) the volunteer went over in detail “Nothing Gold Can Stay” from the March 26th 2008 edition of The Stranger (Index Publications) with an instructor.
Following several days of rest, the volunteer again read and answered questions from two standard MCAT Verbal Reasoning section practice passages (Kaplan), distinct from those used in the pre-training period.
Percentage correctly answered questions were calculated, and the pre- and post- test results compared using a Student’s t-test with two tails and unequal variance (R Project).
Results
Pre Stranger-based preparation, the volunteer correctly answered 5 out of 13 and 6 out of 12 questions on two standard MCAT verbal reasoning section passages, for an overall average of 44.2%.
During the Stranger-based training period, the student was lead through the Chow review, prompted with questions like:
“What parallel is the author establishing in the first two paragraphs?”
“Would the author agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘Focus on restaurant menus is a good thing.’”
“To what ‘talent’ is the author referring in the fifth paragraph?”
In addition, the volunteer was directed to determine the main point of each paragraph and if the paragraph was primarily concerned with expressing an opinion, conveying fact or both.
After this training period, the volunteer was instructed to attempt two additional standard sample verbal reasoning passages. The scores improved to 11 out of 13 and 12 out of 13 correct answers, for an overall average of 88.4%. This improvement was statistically significant as per a p value of less than 0.05 via the Student’s t-test with two tails and unequal variance.
Pre-training | Post-training | |
---|---|---|
Passage 1 | 5/13 | 11/13 |
Passage 2 | 6/12 | 12/13 |
Mean Score | 44.2% | 88.4% |
Discussion
In this set of experiments, we were able to nearly double a volunteer’s score on the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT examination using the writing contained within the pages of the Stranger. With this vastly improved studying method, we can expect verbal reasoning section scores on the MCAT to increase dramatically. Additionally, we can expect an entire generation of medical students to have a far finer appreciation for the Hooters dining experience.
While the Stranger is currently available for free, we expect that these findings will rapidly push up the subscription price of the publication into the stratosphere, resulting in Stranger contributors becoming even more vastly wealthy than they are now.
Our ongoing studies seek to apply the escort ads to preparation for the biological sciences section of the MCAT.
Comments
Try it again with a Muedede piece.
This is so detailed that a schlub like me cannot determine whether it's real or not.
Calling Slog readers "peers" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
That story about how, dude, a pregnant Hooters waitress is a bummer? That story? I'm pretty sure reading that made me dumber.
Of course, you need a comparison - say the difference in scores after preparing with the Seattle Weekly.
With a sample size that large, it can't be wrong.
hurry up and get this published so you can list it on your applications!
and good luck. DO MORE PRACTICE EXAMS. after that, DO SOME MORE PRACTICE EXAMS. then REPEAT the first two steps.
The researcher failed to control for other possible sources of improvement, including practice at taking the MCAT verbal reasoning section. The researcher also neglected to include lots of pretty Minitab graphs which I wouldn't look at or take the time to understand but would still pass judgement on anyway.
@5, 8.
Response to Reviewers:
The authors greatly appreciate the efforts, critiques and careful reading by the reviewers. With their thoughtful assistance, we believe the revised manuscript is significantly improved. Out point-by-point response follows below.
Reviewer 5:
1. "Of course, you need a comparison - say the difference in scores after preparing with the Seattle Weekly."
While we agree that a comparison between the effect of Stranger writing and Weekly writing would be an intriguing line of experimentation, we firmly believe this is beyond the scope of this initial study. This manuscript demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of reading Stranger writing before examinations. As such, future studies may and should address the safety and efficacy of Weekly writing. We're just not prepared to do so, nor will our IRB approve such risky exposure.
Reviewer # 8:
1. "The researcher failed to control for other possible sources of improvement, including practice at taking the MCAT verbal reasoning section."
We heartily agree with the reviewer's cautions, brilliant and perhaps revolutionary notion. A *controlled* experiment? We shall bask in your glory for a mere moment. While we appreciate your forward thinking ways, we believe merely demonstrating an effect is sufficient and meritorious.
2. "The researcher also neglected to include lots of pretty Minitab graphs which I wouldn't look at or take the time to understand but would still pass judgement on anyway."
This egregious omission is deeply regretted. In the revised manuscript, we have included the requisite number of redundant, non-informative and ignorable graphs, despite the fact the table quite effectively and efficiently conveys the necessary information.
(Officially now, about seven slog readers are still along on the joke...)
God, I love science.
LOL
Well, for the record, I'm a regular reader and I rocked the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT. Wish I could say the same for o-chem.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).