EK Bio
#1- 11 (raw score 18/23 - ~78% correct). Screwed myself out of a 12 (19/23) because I had one question down to 2 answers and waffled back and forth, eventually psyching myself out of picking the correct answer even though I knew it was correct and could justify it, simply because it required a slight inference. I'm trying to not approach science passages in such a verbal-esque way, and it backfired here. I feel like some EK lecture exam questions do require critical thinking and are not just content based, and this was one of them in my opinion.
Planning on doing the remaining 8 bio in-class lecture exams as well as the 8 EK physics ones, and 7 EK gchem ones. My MCAT is 2 weeks from today.
I am off to a decent start at least, but can anyone tell me if the EK Bio lecture exams may get tougher as you go up in number. I feel that the passages in exam #1 were really good at testing bio content which is my biggest weakness. I hope what others have said on here is true: namely that the EK in-class lecture exams for science are tougher than the real MCAT because most of the easy questions has been removed. That is also what the EK writers state in the beginning of the EK bio book, and if that's true, and if I can get a strong grasp on contnt from the other 8 lectures as well by test time, maybe I can actually get 80-85% of the bio questions right on the real thing. That would be nice because it would set me up for my goal score of 11 on BS, which would be much better than my BS score of 8 on AAMC 11.
I am planning on finishing up the reading for EK bio #2 later tonight (have about 10 pages left), then I'm going to take EK bio exam #2 without reviewing answers afterward. After a short break, I'll read chapter 1 in EK physics then take the EK physics #1 exam without reviewing answers. I'll review both tomorrow. The plan is to doing 2-3 of these lecture exams a day for bio, physics and gchem after reviewing the content, with the goal of finishing them up by next Wednsday. I'm doing TPR passages for bio content and I'm using a mix of TPR passages and EK 1001 for both physics and gchem. Maybe I'll throw in a couple EK verbal exams as practice but verbal is my strong suit so really focused now on nailing down content weaknesses. Then I'll do the AAMC self-assessments next Thursday and Friday and see where my content weaknesses are, and supplement with some EK 1001 ochem questions on the Saturday and Sunday before the exam to fill in the holes.
I'm not sure why so many people trash EK on here for content review for non-bio science subjects. It got me trashing it a bit too, but I think I've changed my mind. EK bio is good even if you're learning the material for the first time. My bio background is incredibly weak but I feel like I'm learning so much from EK bio that I never learned from gen bio I and II that will serve me well on the MCAT. I'm halfway through the EK lecture 1 for physics and I think it's phenomenally written and is really helping me to see the important points. I'm making sure that I know the meaning of EVERY word written in brown and bold in the EK bio book, and that I can connect it to the relevant subtopic. From looking at the EK physics book, it seems they hit every concept listed on the AAMC outline and show you cool shortcuts for solving problems.