MLBrandow wrote:1. Instructor: I teach classes for both the MCAT and LSAT. Students who take the MCAT generally spend four or less weeks studying for the test. Students who take the LSAT generally spend eight or more weeks studying for the test. Therefore, the MCAT is a much easier test.
All of the following, if true, call into question the instructor's conclusion EXCEPT
(A) There is much less preparation material available for the MCAT than for the LSAT.
(B) The instructor is obviously lying about teaching classes for both the MCAT and LSAT.
(C) Students who study for the MCAT generally have spent the last three years of their lives taking science courses whose concepts are tested on the MCAT, while most students who take the LSAT generally have never taken a course whose concepts are tested on the LSAT.
(D) Many students who hope to take the MCAT never take it because they fail classical mechanics and organic chemistry, then change their majors from Pre-Med to Political Science.
(E) The content of the MCAT cannot be studied for to the degree that the LSAT can because the material is so much more complex in nature.
Haha, ok (C). But seriously..(the "if true" is the operative phrase above, as C may not be applicable in the real world)
Getting back to reality for a moment, that first statement is totally nonsense. The MCAT, on average, requires 2-3 months of rigorous study (for some, less, but most average 2-3). It's not so much the material is that hard to pin down, per se. Yes, as you say (or better said, imply), students do have a few years of sciences courses in the bank before attempting to grapple with the MCAT. And yes, in many colleges students are simply ill-prepared for the types of questions offered on the LSAT, which requires a good deal of preparation in topics such as logic and pure philosophy- not Kant or Derrida bs- but the real "meaty" philosophy with syllogisms and stuff. Pre-law? It's a joke in most colleges, and poli sci is a lame substitute. Poli sci is only useful for law insofar as it teaches one to read and write, which is great for reading comp type questions and the pointless essay.
Now, what I said in my post is that the MCAT and LSAT have some similarities, but they differ as well. It's like asking some random person, "Which is harder, playing the violin or spaking German?" For most people, the answer is "Both are equally difficult".
But some people who have a background in Germanic studies will say "violin" while those who have a background in musical instrument playing- but no German- will say that German is harder. It depends on where you come from- what your skill sets are. You say, "Well, MCAT is specialized, LSAT is not" but then turn around and say "Students get prepped more." Well, to be honest,there are a few flaws in your argument.
1. MCAT IS a more specialized exam, but even the very best students in bio and pre-med can get their butts whopped by this monster. In fact,the MCAT- as I stated above- is not so much about concrete- crystallized- intelligence as it is about the fluid intelligence which, no surprise here, is similar to what is required on the LSAT. Basically, it's a reasoning exam masquerading as a health sciences exam. Think "Columbo Goes to Med School" (For those who have no idea who Columbo is, well, substitute Sherlock Holmes). It's not the same typ of thinking, but it is a thinking exam more than most people imagine it to be.
2. Many students take years of undergrad sciences courses and still fail to grasp important concepts. Again, they know the
what but not the
why.
3. I don't know how the hypothetical scenario where students, who have had no prior exposure to either pre-med, or pre-law, would play out if they tried to grapple with both exams. See, when one asks "Which exam is harder" it matters that you ask "for whom?". For a pre-med student, the LSAT is likely harder. For pre-law, the MCAT. For some guy who has been in a cave and doesn't know premed or prelaw from Bo Didley, both exams are very hard. Even you imply that the LSAT requires preparation, which some pre-law programs don't provide.
4. Even if we assume (C) is true (and I cannot assume that out of hand), a pre-law student with fairly poor LSAT prep can get up to a competitive level in a matter of 1-2 months. The rest, well, after all, is genetics and innate ability. But the MCAT is also partly innate, because, I can tell you, many many 4.0 GPAs have messed up on the MCAT after several do-overs. They don't understand that sometimes the score is what it is.
So in a sense the answer cuts both ways. Yes, pre-med students have maybe 3 years to get ready for the types of information that they face on the MCAT, while many pre-law students do not. But the pre-law students can no doubt catch up with 1-2 months of study as well. Furthermore, the MCAT can't be cracked just by having a great GPA in sciences courses and lots of undergrad classes in bio, chem, etc.
There was a time, I believe, when the MCAT and LSAT were both considered as acceptable entrance exams to MENSA. I am not sure if the MCAT qualifies anymore, but the fact that at least it once did qualify (it may well still qualify, but people here are free to post their own answers on this matter), indicates that to simply view the MCAT as a "memorization" based exam and little else, is wrong.
I dislike turf wars myself, like "Law is better than the medical field" or "The medical field is better than law" blah blah blah. Which is what these posts ultimately amount to, or regress towards.
Do what you like AND what you are best at.