I use(d) Berkeley and Princeton extensively. I glanced over EK
If you've forgotton anything about science, then don't use EK. It's a brush-up, not a full breakdown of the necessary materials
Princeton Review was majorly logical, moderately conceptual, majorly time-consuming and majorly mathematical. "Here is 'x' and 'y'. Memorize them." Whoever wrote the bio book for PR was under the influence at the time.
Berkeley is minorly logical, majorly conceptual, majorly time-consuming and moderately mathematical. It's fluffy and reassuring. You'll learn your tips, and you'll smile when you defeat difficult questions with ease. PR doesn't stress canceling out choices by analyzing units. PR doesn't give shortcuts for kinematics or circuitry. PR gives you the concepts and the math and says "do it". BR holds you by the hand. As a consequence, BR misses some things that PR doesn't (for example, meta/ortho/para binding and some more complicated applications of torque and weight on a fulcrum), and PR misses some shortcuts that PR doesn't in turn. BR Bio section is possibly written by the same person that wrote the PR Bio section, but when they wrote the BR Bio section they were even more-so under the influence of illicit substances. The grammar is terrible, bizarre jumps in logic are made, and spelling errors run unbridled and rampant throughout the text.
Besides the Bio sections of PR and BR, they are both solid. If you have ample time and a thirst for lack of social life and friendship, you should review both. I found that using both simultaneously introduced me to fresh ideas often enough, and helpful tips (BR) and facts (PR) at an adequate enough frequency to avoid burnout.
I found that EK verbal passages in the 1001 passage book were of a different species than AAMC Verbal. The EK passages do this thing where they expect you to assume that just because they say something in a question doesn't mean it's true. For instance, on the AAMC suppose you reach a question that says, "Cats are feral, what does this say about the author?" If you reach this question, you will cater to AAMC's alternate universe where cats are feral and reimagine the passage through that lens. However, if EK poses this question, they may then say in the answer explanation, "AHA! But the passage never did say that cats are feral, did it? DID IT???! SO YOU'RE WRONG. FOOL." Because the Verbal passages of the EK follow a foreign and warped logic compared to AAMC, I would not trust them at all and take preference to the BR verbal book with its diagnostic passages. Those are on mark with actual AAMC material.
