I have all the TBR books and all the TPR Hyperlearning books. I can also get any EK book within a week. It took me almost a month to get all of this.
I was planning on using specific books for specific topics. For example:
Verbal: I was going to use the EK 101 and TPR books
Biology: I was going to use TPR (I wanted a detailed approach)
Physics: I was going to use BR (heard it was great for physics)
Ochem: I was going to use BR (heard it was amazing)
Gchem: I was going to use BR
Source of Practice:
TPR Hyperlearning Verbal Workbook and Science Workbook and possibly EK 1001 series
CBT's:
First, I was going to go through AAMC 7-10
Then AAMC 3-6
Then BR 1-7
Then some of the TPR
I thought, if I could do this schedule within 6 months, I would be in great shape for the Sept 11 MCAT
Here's the problem. I am going to be taking a class that is NOT taught by any of the above mentioned companies. However, the guy who runs the class is brilliant, and I am pretty sure he's right about how I should approach the MCAT. He focuses on big picture, critical thinking. He doesn't believe you need to know all the little details. When I ask him what he thinks about EK 101 verbal passages, he said they don't have the right solutions. When I asked him about TPR, he mentioned that although their material is correct, it's way to much information you need. Instead of suffocating myself trying to learn every concept verbatim from the books, he tries to build a technique that works on any type of passage, no matter how random the material is.
His class focuses on AAMC 3-6 material, which I think is extremely smart considering those are actual AAMC tests, and not just questions randomly made up by some company.
I am signing up for the class soon, but I just wanted a second perspective on this approach to the MCAT.
Also, do you guys think TPR, BR, and EK questions are based on their specific material or is it more like AAMC tests? I really want to end up using TPR and BR CBT's but I don't want to use them if I have to use their books to understand the exam.
SN2ed, I would really like to know what you think. Thanks a lot for the help.
I was planning on using specific books for specific topics. For example:
Verbal: I was going to use the EK 101 and TPR books
Biology: I was going to use TPR (I wanted a detailed approach)
Physics: I was going to use BR (heard it was great for physics)
Ochem: I was going to use BR (heard it was amazing)
Gchem: I was going to use BR
Source of Practice:
TPR Hyperlearning Verbal Workbook and Science Workbook and possibly EK 1001 series
CBT's:
First, I was going to go through AAMC 7-10
Then AAMC 3-6
Then BR 1-7
Then some of the TPR
I thought, if I could do this schedule within 6 months, I would be in great shape for the Sept 11 MCAT
Here's the problem. I am going to be taking a class that is NOT taught by any of the above mentioned companies. However, the guy who runs the class is brilliant, and I am pretty sure he's right about how I should approach the MCAT. He focuses on big picture, critical thinking. He doesn't believe you need to know all the little details. When I ask him what he thinks about EK 101 verbal passages, he said they don't have the right solutions. When I asked him about TPR, he mentioned that although their material is correct, it's way to much information you need. Instead of suffocating myself trying to learn every concept verbatim from the books, he tries to build a technique that works on any type of passage, no matter how random the material is.
His class focuses on AAMC 3-6 material, which I think is extremely smart considering those are actual AAMC tests, and not just questions randomly made up by some company.
I am signing up for the class soon, but I just wanted a second perspective on this approach to the MCAT.
Also, do you guys think TPR, BR, and EK questions are based on their specific material or is it more like AAMC tests? I really want to end up using TPR and BR CBT's but I don't want to use them if I have to use their books to understand the exam.
SN2ed, I would really like to know what you think. Thanks a lot for the help.