Any glaring weaknesses with these study materials?

[WhizoMD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Will these study materials be enough for about 6 months of studying (3 months light-moderate 3 months heavy)?

TPR Hyperlearning Set (including both workbooks) ($120)
EK Complete Study Package and Verbal 101 ($50)
AAMC Full lengths 3-10 ($245)

I have a limited budget (about $500) so I'm trying to make the most of it. And, I found good deals on the EK and TPR stuff. I know a lot of people recommend TBR, but I haven't seen any decently priced used books, and the shipping charge for the new books is pretty high.

All pre-reqs were taken within the last 12 months, and I've taken a few upper level bio courses. (if that changes anything).

So, will I be missing anything significant using these materials? Is there a better way to allocate the money? (eg. just buy tpr workbooks instead of set, or use a mix of FL's instead of all aamc)

 

[SN2ed]

Here are my recommendations for a budget of about $500. You could take off the EK Bio to save $30, but it does have better content review than BR Bio.

$245 for AAMC FLs (http://www.e-mcat.com/)

$240 for BR Physics, O-chem, Gen Chem, Biology (http://www.berkeley-review.com/TBR/home-study.html)

$26 for EK Verbal 101 (http://www.amazon.com/Examkrackers-...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243226173&sr=8-2)

$30 EK Bio (http://www.amazon.com/Examkrackers-...=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243226173&sr=8-9)

Prices vary on TPR Hyperlearning Verbal Workbook, search the For Sale forum on here for copies. They regularly show up.

Total = $541 + TPR Hyperlearning Verbal Workbook

 

[WhizoMD]

Does it matter a lot which year the tbr/tpr books are? Have they changed a lot from say 2003/2004 to the current versions?

 

[Vanguard23]

Whatever compromise you make, do not make the EK 101 one of them. I consider it essential to my verbal prep.

 

[nwdmd]

After reading the 30+ thread, I can tell you that there have been many who've scored >30 using only EK, or only TPRH, so a combo should allow for some solid content review.
I'm personally using both sources, and have been happy so far.. For a few topics I've referenced wikipedia (i.e. simple harmonic motion <---What a great, free source! This is just and example, but if you can reason out what's happening in those .gif images, I feel you'll have a reference to answer most conceptual problems related to SHM).

I recall one 30+er who was having trouble improving their physics scores with just EK, so they purchased TBR physics only.. If you have time, you could keep costs down by only supplementing areas that you've identified as weak.

Search the forums in regards to changes made to TPR/TBR during the past 5 years, TBR books have changed quite a bit.

Keep in mind you'll get some of your money back when you sell your materials, so be sure to keep them clean.

 

[SN2ed]

Does it matter a lot which year the tbr/tpr books are? Have they changed a lot from say 2003/2004 to the current versions?

Surprisingly they have changed enough to warrant getting the new versions if possible. Here are the copyright dates from the BR books someone bought in Jan 2010:

Verbal-2011
Writing-2009
Organic-2010
Biology-2010
Physics-2009

The following was posted by BerkReviewTeach. I know he made a shorter summary somewhere, but I can't find it right now.



In terms of the editions for the books, here is a mix of the reply I got from the office along with my input based on feedback from students I tutored last summer:

Biology : There is a 2008 version, but the book is pretty much the same as it was in 2004 with minor editting and upgrading of drawings since that time. Avoid books from before 2004.

Verbal Reasoning : There are a 2008 and 2009 version that look the same to me. It underwent a major overhaul in 2007, where more technqiues were incorporated into the answer explanations. After running it by students for a year, it went to print as it is now. It also took into account the CBT and issues associated with a computer screen. Avoid books from before 2008.

General Chemistry : There is a 2009 version. It underwent an overhaul in 2004 (in terms of passages and sequence of topics). Apparently it's being revised and editted at this time to match the physics book that was supposed to be out this past spring. But once the new edition comes out (probably late Fall 2009), it will be the version of choice. For now, avoid books from before 2004.

Physics : There is a 2009 version. It has had changes to some of the answer explanations with every new session of the class, but the text has been constant since 2002. There were new passages introduced and changes to existing passages in 2004 and 2007. Selected chapters from the upsoming version of the physics books are supposedly going to be used in the classroom this summer. The new book apparently should be out in the Fall. Avoid books from before 2007.

Organic Chemistry : There is a 2009 version. It underwent a major overhaul in 2004 (when the AAMC people decided to change the content on the MCAT--no more benzene and alkene chemistry, amongst other changes). It also incorporated some biology subjects (mostly biochemistry, in an effort to serve as a sort of Cliff Notes for those topics). Avoid books from before 2004.

My personal opinion is that the year is not as important as the condition. If it's marked in, then it's natural to overemphaisze what has been written in the book. Worry first that the copy is clean (even if it's been erased, indentations from circled letters give you a bias when you attempt a question). If the books are clean, then used books seem fine for most subjects. I'd probably get the physics and general chemistry brand new if it were me, but those are the subjects I most would not want a previous user's influence.

Just to see what's out there, I looked at Amazon and have to laugh at the following offer: $72.49 for a used Physics Part I

Based on the Amazon prices, I would definitely not buy from them. If they come up on eBay, that would probably be the better way to go.

 

[pdxjazz]

After reading the 30+ thread, I can tell you that there have been many who've scored >30 using only EK, or only TPRH, so a combo should allow for some solid content review.
I'm personally using both sources, and have been happy so far.. For a few topics I've referenced wikipedia (i.e. simple harmonic motion <---What a great, free source! This is just and example, but if you can reason out what's happening in those .gif images, I feel you'll have a reference to answer most conceptual problems related to SHM).

I recall one 30+er who was having trouble improving their physics scores with just EK, so they purchased TBR physics only.. If you have time, you could keep costs down by only supplementing areas that you've identified as weak.

Search the forums in regards to changes made to TPR/TBR during the past 5 years, TBR books have changed quite a bit.

Keep in mind you'll get some of your money back when you sell your materials, so be sure to keep them clean.

I've read the same thread and agree many have done well with just using EK for content. While I'm still sold on using TBR for physics, I have to wonder if their Chem and Orgo might be a bit too detailed considering the new MCAT appears to be headed more towards critical thinking than rote memorization. I wonder if it might be more effective to use EK for "lighter" content review and perhaps their 1001 series, and spend more time on practice tests. Any thoughts?

 

[Vanguard23]

Surprisingly they have changed enough to warrant getting the new versions if possible. Here are the copyright dates from the BR books someone bought in Jan 2010:

Verbal-2011
Writing-2009
Organic-2010
Biology-2010
Physics-2009

The following was posted by BerkReviewTeach. I know he made a shorter summary somewhere, but I can't find it right now.



In terms of the editions for the books, here is a mix of the reply I got from the office along with my input based on feedback from students I tutored last summer:

Biology : There is a 2008 version, but the book is pretty much the same as it was in 2004 with minor editting and upgrading of drawings since that time. Avoid books from before 2004.

Verbal Reasoning : There are a 2008 and 2009 version that look the same to me. It underwent a major overhaul in 2007, where more technqiues were incorporated into the answer explanations. After running it by students for a year, it went to print as it is now. It also took into account the CBT and issues associated with a computer screen. Avoid books from before 2008.

General Chemistry : There is a 2009 version. It underwent an overhaul in 2004 (in terms of passages and sequence of topics). Apparently it's being revised and editted at this time to match the physics book that was supposed to be out this past spring. But once the new edition comes out (probably late Fall 2009), it will be the version of choice. For now, avoid books from before 2004.

Physics : There is a 2009 version. It has had changes to some of the answer explanations with every new session of the class, but the text has been constant since 2002. There were new passages introduced and changes to existing passages in 2004 and 2007. Selected chapters from the upsoming version of the physics books are supposedly going to be used in the classroom this summer. The new book apparently should be out in the Fall. Avoid books from before 2007.

Organic Chemistry : There is a 2009 version. It underwent a major overhaul in 2004 (when the AAMC people decided to change the content on the MCAT--no more benzene and alkene chemistry, amongst other changes). It also incorporated some biology subjects (mostly biochemistry, in an effort to serve as a sort of Cliff Notes for those topics). Avoid books from before 2004.

My personal opinion is that the year is not as important as the condition. If it's marked in, then it's natural to overemphaisze what has been written in the book. Worry first that the copy is clean (even if it's been erased, indentations from circled letters give you a bias when you attempt a question). If the books are clean, then used books seem fine for most subjects. I'd probably get the physics and general chemistry brand new if it were me, but those are the subjects I most would not want a previous user's influence.

Just to see what's out there, I looked at Amazon and have to laugh at the following offer: $72.49 for a used Physics Part I

Based on the Amazon prices, I would definitely not buy from them. If they come up on eBay, that would probably be the better way to go.

Why avoid the Chemistry books before 2004? People on here have verified that even the 2003 versions are the same as the newer ones.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

Why avoid the Chemistry books before 2004? People on here have verified that even the 2003 versions are the same as the newer ones.

One poster said their 2002 (something like that book) seemed like the 2009 book. That's the only time I've read it here, and it didn't match what I have. My older version of the BR book from student days is quite different than the current version in terms of the questions and many of the passages. Some of the text is the same, but in general chemistry there are now ten chapters when there used to only be eight. I know for sure that orgo changed significantly in the 2004 printing, because all of the alkene and benzene chemistry was omitted and new passages that incorporated more biology examples and experiements were added.

Personally I just don't see why you'd risk studying from a 2002 book if you could pick up a 2009 book. They are probably the same cost used, so why not get the more current book?

 

[WhizoMD]

I did a search and didn't really find a consensus: are kaplan full lengths and section tests good practice (from 2004)? I have the TPR workbooks and EK 101 for practice passages atm, would the kaplan section tests be good to work into the rotation?

 

[hazmat2]

Whatever compromise you make, do not make the EK 101 one of them. I consider it essential to my verbal prep.

I second this! I found the 1001 books to be incredibly helpful as well. The EK study books helped when I took the classes, as well as for MCAT study.

 

[SN2ed]

I did a search and didn't really find a consensus: are kaplan full lengths and section tests good practice (from 2004)? I have the TPR workbooks and EK 101 for practice passages atm, would the kaplan section tests be good to work into the rotation?

Kaplan FL #1-6 are good. The Kaplan sectional tests, not so much. If you're running low on practice material, use the sectionals.

 

[Vanguard23]

One poster said their 2002 (something like that book) seemed like the 2009 book. That's the only time I've read it here, and it didn't match what I have. My older version of the BR book from student days is quite different than the current version in terms of the questions and many of the passages. Some of the text is the same, but in general chemistry there are now ten chapters when there used to only be eight. I know for sure that orgo changed significantly in the 2004 printing, because all of the alkene and benzene chemistry was omitted and new passages that incorporated more biology examples and experiements were added.

Personally I just don't see why you'd risk studying from a 2002 book if you could pick up a 2009 book. They are probably the same cost used, so why not get the more current book?

Well, I have the 2009 Chemistry Part II and the 2003 Chemistry Part I. Out of curiousity: Are the Acids/Bases and Buffers stuff pretty much the same between versions?