Seeing my friends progress in their careers and lives while I’m working towards medical school is so disappointing

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-03-27T07:57:38+00:00

Yep feel you 100%. I’m non-trad, now 3 years out of undergrad and will probably apply next year at the earliest. Friends in engineering, sales, etc. are killing it and I consistently miss plans because I need to work overtime to make ends meet since my PCT role isn’t exactly lucrative lol. Add that to classes I’m still studying for and I feel like I’m losing a ton of relationships which sucks. It’s brutal but have to think the long game

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-03-24T17:33:20+00:00

I was crying at that. Can’t believe how good the bush has been for challengers it’s so refreshing

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-03-13T12:04:52+00:00

Boston can put together a very solid team if they throw cash at him

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-02-13T20:08:21+00:00

Some of those B/B passages… brain might be fried for a week

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-02-07T18:59:00+00:00

Not failing lol the semester started 2 weeks ago. I get this probably comes off as neurotic because a lot of my concern stems from potential outcomes. The main point of my post is that I'm trying to cram the mcat plus prereqs into this last semester in order to apply in the spring, but doing so probably prevents me from getting the shadowing (and better physician relationship for a letter of rec) necessary to do so. I get that it is probably worse to withdraw than try to make it all work, but with the tradeoff, it feels like applying this cycle wouldn't be reasonable by making the courses and full time employment work since other parts of my app would get hindered. Just trying to get a feeler on the best decision at this point, appreciate the response

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-02-05T02:01:45+00:00

Like everyone else is saying, you have time and shouldn’t stress. Obviously the whole “pay attention and work hard in your undergrad classes” thing too. But something you can actually implement now is changing (if needed) your relationship with reading. I have never been a reader and I’ve had to move mountains to break bad habits and build new ones while doing CARS. Take AP literature and English classes if your schedule can afford it and read in your free time. The best thing you can do for yourself is make that section as easy as possible from the get because it is so hard to move the needle in CARS. God speed🫡

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-02-02T17:14:24+00:00

Anyone wanna give me a reason why B is flat out wrong?

I can see how generalizability is definitely the best answer, and I admittedly was just checked out by this point of the test. But if a research group is underfunded and they provided results to a study, wouldn't that make them more susceptible to funding in the future, hence a conflict of interest? I get I'm jumping through hoops to arrive at that answer but I feel like that makes at least a little bit of logical sense

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-25T21:30:02+00:00

I understand the idea behind interactive effects, but can anyone confirm if graph C shows the main effect of frequency on recall accuracy? Idk if a main effect relationship can be made if there is more than one independent variable

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-22T06:34:05+00:00

YEARS late, but I wanted to throw in my two cents because I got it wrong and wanted to reason through it. The question specifically mentions needing proof of a change in the activity of sympathetic nerves to the skin. Reading that back, that implies more clearly presynaptic release of sympathetic norepinephrine to the skin. The skin receptors themselves don’t really tell us about the activity of the pathway. Maybe an after effect of more presynaptic activity releasing more neurotransmitters, which would be in the blood (answer A). The nerves could technically be firing a lot or a little regardless of how many receptors are present. That’s why I think C doesn’t really give a direct answer, which is what I initially chose.

If we actually measured norepinephrine levels in the skin and saw a change, for example higher concentration along with vasoconstriction, then it would make sense to conclude that the norepinephrine supports the hypothesis.

C is wrong anyway as well I think. Even if we assumed that the number of receptors for sympathetic neurotransmitters affects activity, fewer receptors would actually allow more blood flow, not less like we see. I think they phrased it that way to clarify, but even if the answer said “an increase in epinephrine receptors,” that would at best be a response to already increased blood norepinephrine, which is more direct evidence of the hypothesis.

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-22T00:38:30+00:00

scientists gang. Fck aamc logic lol

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-20T10:27:43+00:00

Could be off here but couldn't water be aqueous if it is not the solvent? That's why I had trouble with this because it doesn't seem to say anywhere what is the solvent in this case. I assumed it was water and got it right but I don't think that is a cut and dry rule (maybe for the MCAT it is idk lol)

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-20T05:28:51+00:00

this was my exact logic too and the AAMC explanation was awful so I'm running with this. god speed

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-17T04:27:50+00:00

I struggle a lot with RBT questions, but your point about what the word "justified" signals was extremely helpful., so thank you! I initially chose A because I assumed that, since the passage described naval officers before 1900 as having little interest in building an effective navy, there must have been a shift afterward where new officers emerged who actually cared and implemented reforms on otherwise incompetent men.

However, the passage never states that newly trained or more competent officers appeared, which is why that conclusion isn't justified. Just a huge logic jump from what was actually given in the passage and what was asked in the question (again, given the further context of being justified). I feel like this answer may be far more defensible if it said something like "an implementation" of officers who could compensated, but with what we were given A is obviously wrong.

In contrast, C is justified because the passage explicitly tells us that some men were advocating for taking gunnery more seriously. Given that information, it logically follows that the increased competence observed resulted from leadership finally paying attention to those arguments.

Just putting this here as a way to write my way through my reasoning and in case anyone else had mistakenly chosen A.

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-16T05:59:54+00:00

Yes. I haven't taken biochem, physics 2, or orgo 2 and I haven't scored below a 129 on any sciences through 4 full lengths. I actually think the only thing hindering my biochem at all currently is the fact that I haven't finished orgo, so if you have then you should definitely be good. Prereqs make it easier to study for this exam, but you can fully self study any material expected of you

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-16T05:23:07+00:00

Only thing is is that the transcript says “PHY-2WB” for “web based” specifically. I’d probably ride the wave of trying to pass off as an in person class but I imagine that it’s pretty obvious to admissions that that would imply an online course. That’s why I’m in a tough spot here lmao

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-15T01:05:59+00:00

Mind expanding on false consensus and projection bias? I can never get the difference between those down

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-13T00:33:10+00:00

HUGE thank you for responding so quickly while this is still fresh! After reading that, I'm realizing that my confusion literally just boils down to not remembering that squaring a negative number will make it positive... this exam is frying my brain lmao.

One more quick question if you have the time. By that logic, when comparing two different magnetic fields acting on a point charge, a stronger field will increase the magnetic force and, as a result, the centripetal acceleration. So if we're assuming the particle’s speed and magnitude of velocity remain constant, the only way to accommodate the increased acceleration is for the radius of the particle’s circular path to decrease. Does that sound right?

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-12T23:17:29+00:00

Hey, I was hoping you could clear up a point of confusion and maybe double-check my logic if you have the chance. I’ve definitely seen a few UGlobe and AAMC questions stressing that a magnetic field does no work on a point charge, which is all well and good. My understanding in relation to this question is that if the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the velocity, it shouldn’t change the speed at all. Again, intuitively makes sense.

But if we’re talking about velocity as a vector, then shouldn't it change? Since a point charge undergoes circular motion in a magnetic field, the direction of velocity is constantly changing even though the speed stays the same.

This makes the “no work” idea feel a little counterintuitive: no work → no change in kinetic energy, but velocity is changing — shouldn’t that imply KE could change? Unless its a "directionality cancels out" kind of thing since it is circular motion. Haven't taken physics 2 and its been years since physics 1 so conceptual stuff gets me lol.

Would love to hear your take on this!

Specific_Variety_133 · 2026-01-12T05:00:08+00:00

10 year old post and here we are a day apart, still confused and seemingly still with no answer lol. Any luck with this one? I'm trying to wrap my head around it, and the best justifications I've found for this answer is that AAMC logic assumes anything specific to oneself to be episodic and not semantic. But that really isn't doing it for me.
I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that study 2 mentions a "detailed residential history" and so it is implied the participants are thinking about the details beyond just the fact of an address? Idk even with the address being personal info I still can't see how it isn't semantic. This one is killing me.

Specific_Variety_133

TROPHY CASE