Examkrackers weaknesses

[GBFKicks]

Did any of you find that some parts of the MCAT were not covered thoroughly enough on the examkrackers books? As I go through the books, they don't seem too in-depth-- I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Any way... what's the verdict... what were the areas that you thought EK could have covered better?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Speedy]

I didn't think that EK covered genetics very well. I had the 3rd edition, and I don't know if the subsequent editions improved in this area. I felt that the bio part of my MCAT was like 50 % genetics (I could be wrong - that section freaked me out on test day!).

 

[DualSuperLead]

I studied with ExamKrackers exclusively, and though I am pleased with my score ( VR:11 PS:10 BS:9 ), i felt that a few sections were weak. The Organic Chemistry section, though claiming to cover all necessary reactions, did not include a few that I saw on the MCAT. I also missed a nomenclature problem that EK did not cover. So, I am a little dissapointed in my BS score because I know I was capable of better. Also, I strongly recommend the EK101 Verbal book. Practice is the only way to improve your VR score, reading the EK book alone won't help much.

 

[javandane]

I studied with ExamKrackers exclusively, and though I am pleased with my score ( VR:11 PS:10 BS:9 ), i felt that a few sections were weak. The Organic Chemistry section, though claiming to cover all necessary reactions, did not include a few that I saw on the MCAT. I also missed a nomenclature problem that EK did not cover. So, I am a little dissapointed in my BS score because I know I was capable of better. Also, I strongly recommend the EK101 Verbal book. Practice is the only way to improve your VR score, reading the EK book alone won't help much.

congratulations on your score. do you remember which reactions you saw on the test that EK failed to cover in their book? nomenclature?

thanks for your help.

 

[madrigail]

I really loved the EK for MCAT review- I got a 32R, so I'm confident their review was well put together.

As for the genetics..the 5th edition had plenty of genetics (molecular mostly) and they also have the genetics chapter for download on their website (or at least the old website, not sure about new one).

Orgo- I think they did an excellent job with this...they teach that you don't need to know each tiny little reaction to minutiae, you just need to know how the functional groups behave and then you can predict what will happen in a big hairy reaction you've never seen. A+ rating from me (and I hated orgo in college- got a 13 on the mcat though)

The only thing I think they are a little weak on is Thermodynamics and maybe some of the Physics portions. I had to go back to my text books to undestand some stuff.

If you have any other questions feel free to pm me, or just post more on here

 

[madrigail]

EK does cover nomenclature...but very briefly. They have a list of two pages worth of functional groups you should recognize/memorize as well

 

[IndyZX]

i used EK almost exclusively and received a 38O...

any and all descriptions of heat, energy, and work in the general chem and physics portions totally suck. use NOVA physics as well as a secondary general chem resource to complement

edit: i agree with the below poster that ochem was weak; you will need extra materials if you did not master ochem in your undergraduate course. however, i thought that molecular genetics was covered well enough. also, the concepts of pedigrees, punnett squares, sex-linking, etc. were covered in a very light manner, but only the stuff that you needed to know was taught.

 

[OnMyWayThere]

Very weak in Organic Chemistry and Genetics

 

[DualSuperLead]

congratulations on your score. do you remember which reactions you saw on the test that EK failed to cover in their book? nomenclature?

thanks for your help.

It's been two months now, so sorry if I can't be very specific, but I had problems on one long synthesis passage where the question asks to give intermediates. Maybe my organic is just weak, but there were reactions I had never seen before, though I have no idea what they were now. As for the nomenclature, it was a chemical where you use the N- prefix to designate the location of functional groups. I know this was not covered in my edition of EK, though I did have it in my organic class. (which was too long ago to remember anything from) Sorry I can't be any more specific, but I tried to block that test from my mind when I got through with it. Good Luck!