BR content review has too many discretes and pages

[Platonic]

---

Members do not see this ad.

First off, hello everyone. This is my first post.

Anywho, I'll have a total of 80 days to prepare for the MCAT. I have the complete science sets for EK and BR (I have TPRH SW for Bio problems). Initially, I planned to follow the SN2ed recommendation of using BR for GChem, OChem, Phsics content and EK for Bio content. However, I now think it would be impractical to use BR for content review based on the amount of time it would consume. I have 80 days, not the 95 days recommended in the SN2ed calendar.

Listed below are the page lengths of content review (not total book length) for EK and BR:


300 gen chem TBR

124 gen chem EK

-----------------------------------


241 physics TBR

158 Physics EK

----------------------------------


321 Ochem TBR

100 Ochem EK

------------------------------

Reading EK rather than BR for these three subjects would save me a whopping 480 pages of content review. My plan: read only EK for content, and do BR problems. Is this a good plan?

Also, BR has a HUGE amount of discretes in their content review. BR books are so long precisely because of this huge number of discretes. Each chapter has between 80-100 discretes. I intend on skipping these. Most MCAT problems are passage based, and since I'm pressed for time, doing so many discretes seems impractical.

In summary, I guess this post can be simmered down to the following two questions:

1. In my situation, should I use EK for all content and use BR problems?

2. Does skipping all of those BR discretes significantly detract from the quality of the books?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Josh7]

That's probably a good plan. If you've already taken an done well in the course then reviewing with EK and using TBR passages is probably good enough. I'm using TBR for extra content review because I have the time.

 

[DocMC]

I would stick with TBR. I went through Kaplan with my first MCAT and did fine on PS and BS, but i'm 4 chapters in TBR and they really explain concepts well. As I go through I am taught things in a way that makes sense as opposed to just remembering it. I feel like I will crush PS and BS.

 

[Platonic]

That's probably a good plan. If you've already taken an done well in the course then reviewing with EK and using TBR passages is probably good enough. I'm using TBR for extra content review because I have the time.

I'm fresh out of orgo, and I got A's in both classes. I'm a senior physics major, so I feel solid with the physics too. My biggest weaknesses will be BS and GChem. I got A's in GChem, but that was several years ago and I've forgotten most of that stuff. I'm solid on Bio 2 content as I'm fresh out of that class, but I havent taken Bio 1. Howver, I've read through the first 3 1/2 chapters of EK Bio which covers Bio 1, and I feel okay there.

 

[Platonic]

I would stick with TBR. I went through Kaplan with my first MCAT and did fine on PS and BS, but i'm 4 chapters in TBR and they really explain concepts well. As I go through I am taught things in a way that makes sense as opposed to just remembering it. I feel like I will crush PS and BS.

so you feel like skipping the content review would kill the effectiveness of the book?

 

[DocMC]

so you feel like skipping the content review would kill the effectiveness of the book?

Not necessarily. You can still use the passages for practice (and you definitely should). I'm just saying it would be best if you could read the content within the BR books. But if you are stuck for time, use EK, do the BR passages, and DEFINITELY read the BR answer explanations. BR content has better ways to memorize and understand concepts, imo. The best thing I have noticed with BR so far (of many) is that they get you to approach the questions differently and they always help you eliminate 3 wrong answers without looking for the right one.

 

[Platonic]

I have to be honest. TBR gen chem is pure, 24K gold. EK can't compare. I've read read the equilibrium chapters for both of these books, and BR is so much better that it would almost be blasphemous to use EK gen chem instead.

For example, Le Chatliers principle in EK totals 1 page, no example problems. In TBR, it's 6 pages, 6 discretes, and 1 MCAT passage style example. And the questions are not drill questions, they teach you the subtle aspects of the material that give you true mastery over the material, as well as exam skills.

Since Gen Chem is one of my weak subjects, I'll read as much as TBR as possible. I still can't justify doing it for Physics and especially OChem.

 

[shishy]

Yeah this is what I'm doing. At least for things that I have a fairly good grasp on I'm just reading through EK and taking notes on that and then I'll skim TBR. If I ever feel like there's a concept that makes no sense, that I didn't cover in class or remember at all or was uneasy dealing with it in the first place, I'll go to TBR afterwards and then read through that a bit more carefully. Then after I do my content review for the week I generally recap everything and then look at doing passages. I will say that doing the discretes and the EK101/1001 problems after the specific content review does help get the stuff in your head in terms of understanding how the questions might be asked, so that's really nice!

 

[gettheleadout]

I have to be honest. TBR gen chem is pure, 24K gold. EK can't compare. I've read read the equilibrium chapters for both of these books, and BR is so much better that it would almost be blasphemous to use EK gen chem instead.

For example, Le Chatliers principle in EK totals 1 page, no example problems. In TBR, it's 6 pages, 6 discretes, and 1 MCAT passage style example. And the questions are not drill questions, they teach you the subtle aspects of the material that give you true mastery over the material, as well as exam skills.

Since Gen Chem is one of my weak subjects, I'll read as much as TBR as possible. I still can't justify doing it for Physics and especially OChem.

👍 Truly enough good cannot be said about TBR's physical sciences material.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Lol not going to survive BR by leaning on EK. Stop being lazy. Do what you need to do for the mcat.

 

[Platonic]

Lol not going to survive BR by leaning on EK. Stop being lazy. Do what you need to do for the mcat.

disagree. There are people who use EK exclusively to take the actual MCAT. If EK can prepare you for the MCAT, it certainly can prepare you for BR passages.

Regarding the "lazy" comment, disagree again. It's not lazy to truncate content review to dedicate more time to passages. You shouldn't study for the MCAT as if it were a final exam on your pre-req classes.The MCAT is not an advanced science test, it's a test that asks tricky questions about basic science. EK goes in into enough depth with their content review. BR goes into far more depth than is necessary.

I like TBR Gen Chem, although a lot of the stuff is unnecessary. I'll read most of it since I haven't taken Gen chem in several years. The physics book is nothing special as far as content is concerned (e.g., their explanation of centrifugal force is poor and misses the essence of the concept), although the problems are good. The organic chemistry content is overkill to the extreme and a waste of time.

Memorizing TBR content won't help you on the MCAT anymore than memorizing EK will imo. Success on this test is about problem solving and critical thinking skills, things you improve by working problems, not reading unnecessary facts.

 

[Forkit]

This is a very honest comment from me. The MCAT is hard and tricky, and any worthwhile score will require effort to your max. Not to mention the MCAT is a standardized test where you're competing with thousands of pre-med applicants. If it's between TBR and EK, I'd drop the EK books in a heartbeat. The TBR has the best practice passages around, geared specifically for the MCAT. It's also a VERY readable book, you can easily finish a chapter of content review per day. I know studying for the MCAT is a b*tch, but I'd rather study as much as I need to so I don't have to worry about a retake. If TBR is too much content for you, you could at least check out TPR. EK is a definitely NO from me, even their Verbal 101 book. This is my opinion and I am just trying to save you the trouble that will result from inadequate MCAT prep. Good luck!!

 

[MedWonk]

First off, hello everyone. This is my first post.

Anywho, I'll have a total of 80 days to prepare for the MCAT. I have the complete science sets for EK and BR (I have TPRH SW for Bio problems). Initially, I planned to follow the SN2ed recommendation of using BR for GChem, OChem, Phsics content and EK for Bio content. However, I now think it would be impractical to use BR for content review based on the amount of time it would consume. I have 80 days, not the 95 days recommended in the SN2ed calendar.

Listed below are the page lengths of content review (not total book length) for EK and BR:


300 gen chem TBR

124 gen chem EK

-----------------------------------


241 physics TBR

158 Physics EK

----------------------------------


321 Ochem TBR

100 Ochem EK

------------------------------

Reading EK rather than BR for these three subjects would save me a whopping 480 pages of content review. My plan: read only EK for content, and do BR problems. Is this a good plan?

Also, BR has a HUGE amount of discretes in their content review. BR books are so long precisely because of this huge number of discretes. Each chapter has between 80-100 discretes. I intend on skipping these. Most MCAT problems are passage based, and since I'm pressed for time, doing so many discretes seems impractical.

In summary, I guess this post can be simmered down to the following two questions:

1. In my situation, should I use EK for all content and use BR problems?

2. Does skipping all of those BR discretes significantly detract from the quality of the books?

Thanks in advance!

I would stick with TBR for physics and gen chem for sure. TBR verbal sucks, IMO. The physiology volume of TBR is good, but the cellular/molecular/biochem/genetics volume is a bit much. There's a lot you can learn, but it's a bit overkill, particularly in the genetics chapters. TBR orgo is also a bit overkill, though not as much as bio and they do a good job explaining the concepts.

EK was good for verbal. I thought EK wasn't so great for PS or orgo, but not bad for bio. EK bio is good if you have a solid bio background, but without one you may be lost using EK for content review and TBR for passage practice. TBR bio passages are tough.

TPR Hyperlearning workbooks has the best questions overall, but can be tough to find and have relatively few questions.

Overall I would stick with TBR for content and passages for the sciences supplemented with TPRH science workbook, and use EK and TPRH for verbal. One disclaimer I have is that I'm biased since that's how I went about it and got the score in my sig. YMMV and you should find what leads you to a good score.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Have you done BR by using EK only? Have you used both book sets?

disagree. There are people who use EK exclusively to take the actual MCAT. If EK can prepare you for the MCAT, it certainly can prepare you for BR passages.

Regarding the "lazy" comment, disagree again. It's not lazy to truncate content review to dedicate more time to passages. You shouldn't study for the MCAT as if it were a final exam on your pre-req classes.The MCAT is not an advanced science test, it's a test that asks tricky questions about basic science. EK goes in into enough depth with their content review. BR goes into far more depth than is necessary.

I like TBR Gen Chem, although a lot of the stuff is unnecessary. I'll read most of it since I haven't taken Gen chem in several years. The physics book is nothing special as far as content is concerned (e.g., their explanation of centrifugal force is poor and misses the essence of the concept), although the problems are good. The organic chemistry content is overkill to the extreme and a waste of time.

Memorizing TBR content won't help you on the MCAT anymore than memorizing EK will imo. Success on this test is about problem solving and critical thinking skills, things you improve by working problems, not reading unnecessary facts.

 

[scruggs92]

I would go with TBR...

 

[Platonic]

Have you done BR by using EK only? Have you used both book sets?

I have used both sets for chemistry. I feel like the EK is more clear for many concepts, while BR is more in depth. EK series is imo more organized in its content, and it clearly states what is and is not required knowledge. This is very valuable.

For physics, I'm skimming BR and doing all of the in chapter discreets, as well as the 25 review problems at the end of the chapter. I'm saving the 52 practice test problems for later, after content review. This section is easy for me, since as a physics major all of these concepts were taught in depth in upperclassmen courses. Since these concepts are taught using math beyond MCAT level, the watered down explanations in these books hurts my eyes, so I'll just do problems.

I haven't started studying for orgo yet. I'm fresh out of the orgo series, and got A's in both classes and feel confident. I will skim through EK and do BR problems after I'm done reviewing PS.

 

[SOOyC52H1Sof]

I didnt like EK, and would take BR any day.

 

[Synapsis]

disagree. There are people who use EK exclusively to take the actual MCAT. If EK can prepare you for the MCAT, it certainly can prepare you for BR passages.

Regarding the "lazy" comment, disagree again. It's not lazy to truncate content review to dedicate more time to passages. You shouldn't study for the MCAT as if it were a final exam on your pre-req classes.The MCAT is not an advanced science test, it's a test that asks tricky questions about basic science. EK goes in into enough depth with their content review. BR goes into far more depth than is necessary.

I like TBR Gen Chem, although a lot of the stuff is unnecessary. I'll read most of it since I haven't taken Gen chem in several years. The physics book is nothing special as far as content is concerned (e.g., their explanation of centrifugal force is poor and misses the essence of the concept), although the problems are good. The organic chemistry content is overkill to the extreme and a waste of time.

Memorizing TBR content won't help you on the MCAT anymore than memorizing EK will imo. Success on this test is about problem solving and critical thinking skills, things you improve by working problems, not reading unnecessary facts.

I disagree. While the basics are critical for the MCAT (more critical than advanced topics), that does not eliminate the fact that basic concepts may still include complex, or hard to grasp ideas. TBR promotes mastery of the material. They definitely get excessive sometimes (specifically with biology), but you can always tell when that's the case if you use the AAMC topics list. When discussing the fact that the MCAT is a basic sciences test, it is easy to oversimplify its difficulty. I recognize EK doing this more than any other program. Sometimes they even leave out important topics. The first example that comes to mind is when I was studying terpenes using TBR orgo. I remembered EK suggested that terpenes are unimportant and won't be on the MCAT, yet, TBR argues that they can be well-represented. I had the sense to check the BS list on AAMC to find terpenes on the list. I think it's critical to beware that when you use EK alone, you are subjecting yourself to a minimum and in some cases, even less than that.

And the basics can still involve a lot of necessary reading. Even though the MCAT tests "basic biology" for example, there is a seemingly infinite number of topics that they can actually test. And within those topics there are still more that they could get detailed passages on. There are so many ways to test even the most basic of topics. A lot of practice passages are necessary for sure, but why settle for less when you have such a critical test ahead?

 

[Platonic]

I disagree. While the basics are critical for the MCAT (more critical than advanced topics), that does not eliminate the fact that basic concepts may still include complex, or hard to grasp ideas. TBR promotes mastery of the material. They definitely get excessive sometimes (specifically with biology), but you can always tell when that's the case if you use the AAMC topics list. When discussing the fact that the MCAT is a basic sciences test, it is easy to oversimplify its difficulty. I recognize EK doing this more than any other program. Sometimes they even leave out important topics. The first example that comes to mind is when I was studying terpenes using TBR orgo. I remembered EK suggested that terpenes are unimportant and won't be on the MCAT, yet, TBR argues that they can be well-represented. I had the sense to check the BS list on AAMC to find terpenes on the list. I think it's critical to beware that when you use EK alone, you are subjecting yourself to a minimum and in some cases, even less than that.

And the basics can still involve a lot of necessary reading. Even though the MCAT tests "basic biology" for example, there is a seemingly infinite number of topics that they can actually test. And within those topics there are still more that they could get detailed passages on. There are so many ways to test even the most basic of topics. A lot of practice passages are necessary for sure, but why settle for less when you have such a critical test ahead?

This sort of strategy suggests a desire to somehow become an expert on the anything that might pop up on an mcat passage. This is how one would approach a final exam, but the MCAT stresses critical thinking skills more than anything else. There will be topics on MCAT passages that are not in any of the prep books, and you'll be left with your critical thinking skills and understanding of the basics to solve the problems. My belief is that you will learn more critical thinking skills by doing more problems and less content review. I'm not saying you should have an incomplete content review, but that a bare bones EK review is likely enough if you have a solid foundation in your prereqs.

 

[DocMC]

I'm not sure why people argue that TBR is too much "memorizing". Have you used their books? They are ALL ABOUT critical thinking. They have both detail (which doesn't hurt) and amazing ways to help you approach questions an develop critical thinking skills. It's a win-win. just my 0.02.

 

[Synapsis]

This sort of strategy suggests a desire to somehow become an expert on the anything that might pop up on an mcat passage. This is how one would approach a final exam, but the MCAT stresses critical thinking skills more than anything else. There will be topics on MCAT passages that are not in any of the prep books, and you'll be left with your critical thinking skills and understanding of the basics to solve the problems. My belief is that you will learn more critical thinking skills by doing more problems and less content review. I'm not saying you should have an incomplete content review, but that a bare bones EK review is likely enough if you have a solid foundation in your prereqs.

I agree, you do need a lot of practice with passages (and discretes, don't forget they're worth just as much as a passage question) for this test. Part of covering a wide breadth of problems comes with, well, being exposed to more problems. It's been mentioned before, and it's true, that TBR has a lot of in chapter problems. But a great deal of each chapter is also associated with interesting, useful, and speedy ways to think about things rather than sentences in the margin that tell you "don't worry about this, it won't be on the MCAT" - when it just might be.

Of course you must use your critical thinking skills on this test, but part of honing those skills comes with extensive content review as well. Anemic content review not only makes practicing passages more difficult, but it limits your ability to think with what you know because you haven't retained much content.

 

[Platonic]

I agree, you do need a lot of practice with passages (and discretes, don't forget they're worth just as much as a passage question) for this test. Part of covering a wide breadth of problems comes with, well, being exposed to more problems. It's been mentioned before, and it's true, that TBR has a lot of in chapter problems. But a great deal of each chapter is also associated with interesting, useful, and speedy ways to think about things rather than sentences in the margin that tell you "don't worry about this, it won't be on the MCAT" - when it just might be.

Of course you must use your critical thinking skills on this test, but part of honing those skills comes with extensive content review as well. Anemic content review not only makes practicing passages more difficult, but it limits your ability to think with what you know because you haven't retained much content.

Is it REALLY fair to characterize EK content review as "anemic"??? I've done done the first 4 chapters of TBR gen chem, while going through corresponding chapters in EK. While TBR certainly goes into greater depth, every core concept was covered in EK. If you did EK and TBR problems, you'd be just fine, although you'd initially have a little more difficulty with TBR passages. But I think doing EK content followed by TBR passages is probably a good simulation of taking the MCAT, where you'll know the foundational concepts of the passages but not be familiar with all of the details.

Bottom line is that gen chem is supposedly the weakest EK book and the strongest TBR book, but the gap in quality of content isn't all that large. TBR is better no doubt, but EK is sufficient if you have a solid foundation, and if you use TBR problems. The true quality of TBR books is in their problems. My gen chem knowledge is not very strong, so I'll be reading both books simultaneously. If I knew gen chem as well as I knew physics or orgo, I wouldn't waste my time with 600 pages of content review.

 

[Synapsis]

Is it REALLY fair to characterize EK content review as "anemic"??? I've done done the first 4 chapters of TBR gen chem, while going through corresponding chapters in EK. While TBR certainly goes into greater depth, every core concept was covered in EK. If you did EK and TBR problems, you'd be just fine, although you'd initially have a little more difficulty with TBR passages. But I think doing EK content followed by TBR passages is probably a good simulation of taking the MCAT, where you'll know the foundational concepts of the passages but not be familiar with all of the details.

Bottom line is that gen chem is supposedly the weakest EK book and the strongest TBR book, but the gap in quality of content isn't all that large. TBR is better no doubt, but EK is sufficient if you have a solid foundation, and if you use TBR problems. The true quality of TBR books is in their problems.

The only reason I say anemic is because there have been areas where EK has actually told you that you don't need to know something that is actually on the AAMC topics list. That means that in some areas (albeit few, but still some) EK is actually underpreparing you - I gave you an example earlier. Well who do you believe, EK or AAMC...?

I'm not saying that EK is useless, but it's just one of the more basic content review books and, in my experience, has the most content mistakes as well. They're also unclear on a lot of things. Now all of this is relative and it depends on what works for who's reviewing, but I just wouldn't want that type of book to be my main source of content review, regardless of how strong I was in prereqs and regardless of how many practice problems I have.

 

[Platonic]

The only reason I say anemic is because there have been areas where EK has actually told you that you don't need to know something that is actually on the AAMC topics list. That means that in some areas (albeit few, but still some) EK is actually underpreparing you - I gave you an example earlier. Well who do you believe, EK or AAMC...?

I'm not saying that EK is useless, but it's just one of the more basic content review books and, in my experience, has the most content mistakes as well. They're also unclear on a lot of things. Now all of this is relative and it depends on what works for who's reviewing, but I just wouldn't want that type of book to be my main source of content review, regardless of how strong I was in prereqs and regardless of how many practice problems I have.

ultimately, it comes down to how strong you are in the material. I was pretty much a clean slate in gen chem, so i definitely needed a thorough content review. I'm almost done with the first book of TBR, and my level understanding of the material is very good. I have nothing but praise for TBR gen chem, other than the false explanation of electron spin being orbital angular momentum of a spinning electron. However, from what I've seen of the physics content review, it's nothing special. The problems are very good though.

 

[gettheleadout]

ultimately, it comes down to how strong you are in the material. I was pretty much a clean slate in gen chem, so i definitely needed a thorough content review. I'm almost done with the first book of TBR, and my level understanding of the material is very good. I have nothing but praise for TBR gen chem, other than the false explanation of electron spin being orbital angular momentum of a spinning electron. However, from what I've seen of the physics content review, it's nothing special. The problems are very good though.

TBR doesn't say that. In fact, though TBR does attempt to describe spin as the property of a rotating electron, which is untrue and a result of forcing a classical description upon a quantum characteristic, your use of "orbital angular momentum" is incorrect as well. Spin represents intrinsic angular momentum of the electron, apart from its orbital angular momentum.

 

[Platonic]

TBR doesn't say that. In fact, though TBR does attempt to describe spin as the property of a rotating electron, which is untrue and a result of forcing a classical description upon a quantum characteristic, your use of "orbital angular momentum" is incorrect as well. Spin represents intrinsic angular momentum of the electron, apart from its orbital angular momentum.

My use is correct. Rotating masses have orbital angular momentum. Describing electron spin as resulting from rotation/spinning is describing it as a type of orbital angular momentum. So they defined spin as intrinsic spin angular momentum, but gave a physical description of an orbital angular momentum. I was taught that spin does not have a physical explanation.

 

[gettheleadout]

My use is correct. Rotating masses have orbital angular momentum. Describing electron spin as resulting from rotation/spinning is describing it as a type of orbital angular momentum. So they defined spin as intrinsic spin angular momentum, but gave a physical description of an orbital angular momentum. I was taught that spin does not have a physical explanation.

No, they do not. Rotating masses have angular momentum. Orbital angular momentum is a quantum mechanical characteristic not applicable to larger masses such as a rotating top. TBR does not describe electron spin as a measure of orbital angular momentum.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_operator

 

[Platonic]

No, they do not. Rotating masses have angular momentum. Orbital angular momentum is a quantum mechanical characteristic not applicable to larger masses such as a rotating top. TBR does not describe electron spin as a measure of orbital angular momentum.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_operator

TBR describe spin as resulting from rotational angular momentum.I use the terms orbital angular momentum / rotational angular momentum synonymously.The operator for orbital angular momentum is L = r x p . The classical angular momentum of a orbiting particle is also L = r x p . It's really semantics to draw a distinction between the terms. Orbital angular momentum is analogous to classical angular momentum. It results from the movement of the electron around the nucleus (theoretical of course, as electrons are only particles when being observed).

 

[gettheleadout]

TBR describe spin as resulting from rotational angular momentum.I use the terms orbital angular momentum / rotational angular momentum synonymously.The operator for orbital angular momentum is L = r x p . The classical angular momentum of a orbiting particle is also L = r x p . It's really semantics to draw a distinction between the terms. Orbital angular momentum is analogous to classical angular momentum. It results from the movement of the electron around the nucleus (theoretical of course, as electrons are only particles when being observed).

Well there's your problem.

 

[Platonic]

if you'd like to draw a distinction between the terms orbit"al" and orbit"ing" angular momentum despite the fact that my initial statement clearly implied the latter, be my guest. But my initial statement is valid when you cut through the semantics. I'm relatively new to the soft sciences, and I think in terms of concepts more-so than names and titles.

 

[gettheleadout]

if you'd like to draw a distinction between the terms orbit"al" and orbit"ing" angular momentum despite the fact that my initial statement clearly implied the latter, be my guest. But my initial statement is valid when you cut through the semantics. I'm relatively new to the soft sciences, and I think in terms of concepts more-so than names and titles.

🙄

 

[Roxas]

 

[Platonic]

🙄

lol, that was a little tongue in cheek. But warranted given your semantical nit picking. My statement was valid, and you are nit picking.

 

[gettheleadout]

lol, that was a little tongue in cheek. But warranted given your semantical nit picking. My statement was valid, and you are nit picking.

I was not intending to; I have never seen the terms used interchangeably.

 

[Platonic]

I was not intending to; I have never seen the terms used interchangeably.

It's all good. You seem to be technically correct though, the orbital term seems to be reserved for quantum mechanical systems, not orbiting bodies. So says the internet.

 

[Josh7]

Isn't the whole point of electron spin just to clarify which binary direction the electron's magnetic moment points? I don't really see the spin concept being very important for the MCAT besides the quick quantum number determination and maybe the basics of NMR?

 

[jakobinarino]

I used Princeton Hyperlearning for bio, and TBR for all other sciences. Ek101 for verbal. Same time frame as you. I scored well.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Benedictus123]

Well, that was a weird derail. Let's keep the slap fighting to a minimum.

OP, you seem pretty set in what you want to do. And that's great! Honestly, everyone studies for the MCAT differently, and if what you found works for you, go for it! No need to get all defensive when someone tries to answer your question.

Personally, I used both EK and TBR. I read each chapter in each book (well...I didn't read any of the later chapters of EK Physics, I was just so hooked to my TBR!), and while I agree that EK IS anemic in comparison to the rich detail provided by the TBR, EK is perfectly fine for giving you enough info to tackle the real MCAT and the AAMCs FLs. I initially only bought TBR because I wanted more practice passages than what EK was providing - I ended up reading all of the content in all of them and wouldn't trade the education I got for anything. There ARE a decent number of passages in TBR that would be very difficult-to-impossible if you flat-out don't do any content review with them (mostly in the bio). I really liked the TBR content - I felt like the explanations were deeper and more detailed than what I was getting from EK. As a non-trad who's been out of undergrad for a while, this was fantastic for catching me up to speed with many of the concepts.

But look, you do what you need to do. In the end, no matter what the argument is or isn't for TBR, or EK, or Kaplan, or whatever, the only thing that matters are those three little numbers that pop up a month from your real deal.