Is anybody else finding that ExamKrackers material is a bit tougher than others?

[Claritynow]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I find that Exam Krackers material is tougher than aamc and even Kaplan materials. I mean in alot of ways its a good thing because you are prepatring for something tougher but in the same token alot of it is very disheartening. Has anyone else felt this way?

 

[notbobtrustme]

EK tests content beyond what the MCAT requires. This helps when you encounter a passage that does test these addition concepts, so you aren't exactly blind when you first encounter the new material.

 

[Claritynow]

I find that Kaplan has WAY more information for review whereas ExamKrackers is far more streamlined but the actual difficulty of the questions has to go to EK. They seem to be much tougher.

 

[kehlsh]

What I think:

If you can actually understand what EK is saying you are in good shape...

I went through TPRH first because my background knowledge was almost non-existent...... then I went through EK for content. In that way I was able to actually understand what EK was talking about....

Also, you need to do a lot of problems in order to fully grasp what EK is trying to tell you. A lot of stuff that EK tells is based on the Author's perspective, who has gone through **** ton of materials, thus the presentation can be too abstract and condensed for first time learner.

 

[ThereSheGoes]

i don't know if i would say EK is harder, but I wouldn't call it AAMC-like. so it's harder in that sense. for example, the biology passages were more content based instead of comprehsion based. i felt it asked you to bring outside knowledge into some of the questions that wasn't really necessary to know. also, for verbal, i felt like some answers were a stretch. i didn't always see the connection, which is not AAMC-like at all. i used TPR as my primary source, and backed it up with EK and used it to basically find out what my strengths and weaknesses were. i wouldn't rely heavily on it.