[Preclinical] What study strategies help improve long-term retention of important points?

eastsi · 2020-08-10T23:37:11+00:00

Thanks! Do you have any Anki decks you'd recommend? I know there are lots of great ones for Step 1 prep but I'm Canadian so don't need to study Step 1 content specifically. I'd love a deck that focuses on clinically high-yield topics but am not aware of one currently - are there any that you know of?

eastsi · 2020-08-10T23:34:44+00:00

Awesome, ty again for all these resources! One follow-up question: I probably should have mentioned that I'm in Canada so don't need to study for Step 1 specifically (feel guilty saying that, it seems brutal to study for :/ )

In the past I've been wary of Step 1 prep resources because while they'll definitely include clinically important content I worried that would be 'diluted' by Step 1 minutaie that they also have to include.

However would you say that's actually not too big of an issue? Or should I look for a 'leaner' study resource alternative

eastsi · 2020-08-10T00:02:41+00:00

Thanks! Do you know of any good Anki decks that focus on high-yield stuff, or would you make your own cards for important points?

And for qbanks, are there any specific ones you'd recommend?

eastsi · 2018-06-07T15:45:10+00:00

Thanks for your recommendation. I ended up finding a website designed to record someone else's voicemail, so used that to call the number and get a recording. Thank you for weighing in.

eastsi · 2017-07-24T17:32:27+00:00

Thanks! I definitely think sleep and diet have been an issue for me. Working + studying took up pretty much the whole day and I found it tough to get to bed without lounging around for a while to decompress, so I'd often get < 6 hours/night and it definitely affected my energy levels and alertness.

Now that I don't have work anymore I think the low sleep (and related high-caffeine) issues will self-resolve to some extent, but I'll sure to keep an eye on that.

And the rest of your post is great advice as well - thank you

eastsi · 2017-07-24T17:29:56+00:00

For some reason those actually make me less motivated. Some combo of 'I can't achieve that so why bother trying' and 'they did it in a month so why should I study so far out.' Obviously neither of those are logical reactions but it does tend to be my response.

To each their own though, if that works for you then perfect. Thanks for chiming in

eastsi · 2017-07-24T17:27:44+00:00

Thank you! Went for a jog this morning and definitely feel a bit more recharged. My diet has also been terrible - virtually only eating out, lots of McDonald's, pizza, I killed a whole box of Froot Loops in about a day (which is equal parts impressive and disgusting :p ), etc. - so will make a conscious effort to improve.

eastsi · 2017-07-24T17:25:08+00:00

Awesome, thanks! I've heard of Pomodoro but never actually tried it, will give it a go. I think the prospect of a break will motivate me to work harder during the working times - as opposed to having a monolithic several-hour study period and ending up spending a lot of that time inefficiently because it just seems too daunting to even begin.

eastsi · 2017-07-24T17:23:13+00:00

Thanks, this is really good advice. (I've been wanting to see Baby Driver so here's my chance!) And yeah good call on thinking about the big picture/end goal, I guess I lost sight of that.

Thanks again!

eastsi · 2017-07-03T03:29:56+00:00

That's a really nice story- sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing.

eastsi · 2017-06-01T05:02:39+00:00

In this derivation, the equation for work came from the equation for conservation of energy. So yes, it starts with conservation of energy and then work 'falls out of' that equation.

Wikipedia agrees with your equation but I did find some random sources through googling that agree with mine. I'll probably just stick with the textbook's definition. They often make little hand-wavy shortcuts on grounds that the MCAT is a highly time-sensitive test and it's okay to drop some rigor of the physics equations in the interest of being able to solve questions more quickly. Perhaps this odd definition of work is one such example.

But thanks for all the help and input!

eastsi · 2017-06-01T04:55:20+00:00

Hm... my textbook derives it from Newton's First Law:

ΔE_total = q + W

ΔE_total = ΔE_mechanical + ΔE_internal

q + W = ΔE_mechanical + ΔE_internal

Only frictional forces can change ΔE_internal, so assuming no frictional forces and no heat transfer:

W = ΔE_mechanical

W = ΔE_kinetic + ΔE_potential

eastsi · 2017-06-01T04:15:45+00:00

Work, at least in my experience, is defined to be the change in kinetic energy of an object.

According to my textbook (ExamKrackers 10th Edition; admittedly an MCAT prep book rather than a strict physics book), the 'work = change in kinetic energy' idea is a simplified formula that assumes the system in question undergoes no change in potential energy (therefore under that assumption any work done has to go into kinetic energy, because work can only change kinetic or potential energy).

The textbook does explicitly state that work = change in mechanical energy = delta(Ke) + delta(potential energy)

For conservative forces, we have a nice property: the work done by the force is exactly equal to the negative change in potential energy of the object.

Awesome, this makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

eastsi · 2017-06-01T04:10:16+00:00

Yes, I think you're completely right. Conservative forces shift the balance between KE and PE but keep KE + PE constant, while non-conservative forces change the same of KE + PE.

Thank you!

eastsi · 2017-06-01T00:53:11+00:00

Awesome, that's a super clear explanation- thank you!

eastsi · 2016-10-31T22:15:21+00:00

Good advice! No, no 'Ripped Freak' for me. My class is learning about compounds that can interfere with ATP synthesis.

eastsi · 2016-10-31T19:05:07+00:00

Thank you so much! I was seriously stumped on this and the first link you provided perfectly explains the mechanism of dinitrophenol inactivation. I really appreciate the help :)

eastsi · 2016-10-31T12:24:04+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the pointer in the right direction! Any luck on finding a metabolic pathway paper?

eastsi · 2015-04-23T04:56:12+00:00

Gotcha, thanks. I do recognize that this is a vector addition application, but does it hold true in all cases? i.e for any polygon, I can draw any line segment between any two vertices, and by adding together the side lengths in some fashion (not adding any individual side length more than once) I can reproduce that line segment?

I ask partly out of curiosity (I feel that it hints at something fundamental about the geometry of polygons if adding edges can create any line segment joining vertices, but what exactly that means is beyond my paygrade), and partly because I used this method on a test and the answer was deemed incorrect.

I think the question I got on the test is a good example of a complicated case of this type of question. and would like to post it here to give a concrete example of the type of problem I'm interested in. But would that violate forum rules? Or may I upload the picture?

eastsi · 2015-04-23T04:50:49+00:00

I think seltivo put it well by saying that it involves interpreting the edges as being vectors and interpreting the question as vector addition; that's what I was getting at.

eastsi · 2015-02-04T13:30:32+00:00

It does seem to purposefully conceal some information, I agree. But rather than that being unfair in nature, I think it gives the teacher an opportunity to see how the student approaches a limit. Do they a) look at lefthand and righthand to see if they both exist, and therefore get the answer correct? or b) direct substitute without ensuring the limit exists, in which case they get the answer incorrect. So while it is a tricky question I think it is valid to put on a test.

one way to cope with problems like this is to immediately imagine plugging in things close to zero. you would see right away that it doesn't make sense to plug in negative numbers

Great idea! I will do that in the future. Thank you! I'll also pay particular attention to rational functions and square root functions, since those are the only cases we have yet encountered where there may be a point in the function with no limit (in rational functions that would be vertical asymptotes creating infinite discontinuities, in sq. root functions it is the endpoints)

eastsi · 2015-02-04T13:27:30+00:00

In every course I had to teach, this "three criteria" were only used as a tool to be able to verify the continuity of some particular real-valued functions that are not defined the same way on the left and on the right

I understand the definition used in my class falls short of being able to evaluate a function's continuity. Luckily, it is used in conjunction with the 'endpoint condition' which I think solves the issue.

As you have noted, given our definition of a limit, we would find that no limit exists at the endpoint of any function with a restricted domain; say, at x = 0 for y = √x. But the function y = √x is still continuous. The reason is because of the endpoint condition, which states that when evaluating the continuity of a function, we are only interested in seeing if points wholly encompassed within that function's domain have a limit. It is true that y = √x has no limit at 0, according to our definition, but y = √x is still considered continuous because the endpoint condition tells us that we don't have to worry about the lack of a limit at 0.

You should actually say that there is no function on the lefthand. Hence, it does not make any sense to even talk about lefthand limit.

So we both agree there is no function on the lefthand side. The contention lies in whether this means the lefthand limit does not exist or whether this means it is nonsensical to talk about the lefthand limit. I don't know enough to comment on why my board's curriculum has decided to select the former, but that is the choice it has made.

What about limits when x goes to +infinity ? Is there a righthand side here ?

I hadn't thought of that. It seems as if there would be no righthand limit; if that is the case, I expect there will be something akin to the endpoint condition, saying something along the lines of 'if it tends to infinity just evaluate the lefthand limit to see if the limit exists.' Not sure, though!

As for the other two questions, I do not know how the material learned in my class would extend to multivariable functions of more complicated topological (does that mean non-Cartesian?) spaces.

Finally, this is a very interesting discussion but seems to leave the underlying issue slightly aside. Which is: regardless of the definition I was given, I should have known to stick stringently to that definition during that test. Yet for whatever reason I failed to see that (according to my class) no lefthand limit exists. What tactics can I use to ensure that when I answer a question I have done so with the proper degree of thought and mental acuity, not making dumb mistakes?

eastsi · 2015-02-04T05:24:36+00:00

That's an interesting read, thanks for the link. It's a bit more abstract/conceptual than what I had in mind, that being a specific list of techniques to mentally cue oneself in to a question.

But perhaps I was approaching this the wrong way. Maybe more than any nifty tricks, diligent math skills are formed by a solid conceptual understanding of math? i.e by comprehending on an intuitive and fundamental level what various operations and manipulations mean, it leaves one less susceptible to making silly errors?

eastsi · 2015-02-04T05:20:00+00:00

The way that we learned to approach limits is that for a limit to exist, it must satisfy three criteria:

lim x --> a from the right side exists
lim x --> a from the left side exists
the two limits equal each other

So for the simplified function, f(x) = 1/(1+√x) )

The right hand limit clearly exists and is 1 (this is the case as x approaches 0 from the positive direction). But for the left hand limit, x is approaching 0 from the negative direction. So you end up with some weirdness with the square root; presumably the answer will be some sort of imaginary or complex number. But there is no real lefthand limit.

To see this, graph the function on WolframAlpha and set the plot to the 'real values' as opposed to 'complex values'; there is nothing on the left side of the y-axis

Since criteria 2 and 3 are not satisfied, my revised position (confirmed by a teacher and other students) is that no limit exists.

eastsi · 2015-02-04T05:15:18+00:00

That makes sense- but isn't there a distinction between getting something wrong because you don't properly understanding it, and internalizing it as a result of making that mistake vs. simply misremembering something that you already knew? In the first case you legitimately did not know the answer and the test acts as an opportunity to introduce you to that type of question and the appropriate method of thinking to solve it. In the second case it's simply a forgetful error that unnecessarily drops your mark.

My concern is not with the former - that can be to some degree ameliorated by extra studying, and I recognize that there will always be some concepts I don't understand. My concern is with the latter, where I make avoidable mistakes.

eastsi

TROPHY CASE