Is BR Bio a must?

[premed2013]

---

Members do not see this ad.

For BR passages, I have the EK 1001 Bio, EK Bio, and TPR Hyperlearning Science Workbook. Do i need the BR bio?

I have BR, EK, and TPRH for physics, ochem, and gen chem

 

[Donald Juan]

The consensus is that the second BR book is not essential. It is way too in depth for metabolism and seems to lack updates in the genetics section.

The first book (the physiology sections) are very good. If you feel like you don't have enough practice passages, then these books might be good. Obviously for content review you have enough.

Also, in case you are someone like me, who got a little turned on by the idea that the BR review sections on the biochemistry of metabolism were too hard, and decided that everyone who said that was just a wuss...seriously they are too in depth. Don't waste your time.

 

[music2doc]

The consensus is that the second BR book is not essential. It is way too in depth for metabolism and seems to lack updates in the genetics section.

The first book (the physiology sections) are very good. If you feel like you don't have enough practice passages, then these books might be good. Obviously for content review you have enough.

Also, in case you are someone like me, who got a little turned on by the idea that the BR review sections on the biochemistry of metabolism were too hard, and decided that everyone who said that was just a wuss...seriously they are too in depth. Don't waste your time.

From where are you pulling this "consensus"? Both BR Bio books are genius. I definitely had more physio on the real thing but I'd strongly suggest doing both books all the way through (in phases). You really won't get the same kind of quality from other companies' materials.

 

[Donald Juan]

From where are you pulling this "consensus"? Both BR Bio books are genius. I definitely had more physio on the real thing but I'd strongly suggest doing both books all the way through (in phases). You really won't get the same kind of quality from other companies' materials.

I got my "consensus" from here:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=813118

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=639739

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10897565

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=793004

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=508905

And these took me about 2 minutes of searching "TBR bio" to find. If you still have some issue with my..."consensus"....then please find me five forums that praise TBR cellular molecular biochemistry book.

 

[thomasfx10]

I found BR Bio Passages helpful. However, the chapters are dense. If you have the time then go for it else stick with EK bio.

 

[OrganicChemist7]

The consensus is that the second BR book is not essential. It is way too in depth for metabolism and seems to lack updates in the genetics section.

The first book (the physiology sections) are very good. If you feel like you don't have enough practice passages, then these books might be good. Obviously for content review you have enough.

Also, in case you are someone like me, who got a little turned on by the idea that the BR review sections on the biochemistry of metabolism were too hard, and decided that everyone who said that was just a wuss...seriously they are too in depth. Don't waste your time.

Thank you. I keep going through all of the posts and people say to still try the BR Book 2 Passages...which I've done. They are just ridiculously in depth and ask minute details in some. I use it for extra practice, but I am sticking to EK and TPRH for Bio. Hope this helps.

-J

 

[Silverfalcon]

I got my "consensus" from here:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=813118

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=639739

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10897565

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=793004

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=508905

And these took me about 2 minutes of searching "TBR bio" to find. If you still have some issue with my..."consensus"....then please find me five forums that praise TBR cellular molecular biochemistry book.

Um, one of your links has statement goes like this:

TBR bio passages for genetics and molecular biology blow EK out of the water. They have 30 passages on these two topics alone. AAMCs are a joke afterwords.

Genetics and molecular biology are volume II. I guess my question to you is, before you pull what people said, have you taken the real thing? I think not, if I recall correctly.

OP: They are both helpful. Volume II is tough, but real MCAT asks you to analyze physiological changes in molecular level, so you need both Volume I/II. Plus, some topics in Volume II like descriptions of CAC and glycolysis solidify organic understanding, and amino acid's isoelectric points are good for acid base titrations/polyprotic acid understanding.

But, of course, nothing is a must. Do what you feel is necessary.

 

[ridethecliche]

From what I've gathered on the forum, the content is over the top, but the passages are boss.

EK for the content and TBR for the passages seems like the way to go.

 

[Dr Dazzle]

How can you even do the passages in BR without reading their content? More for the experience and explanations then?

 

[Donald Juan]

Um, one of your links has statement goes like this:



Genetics and molecular biology are volume II. I guess my question to you is, before you pull what people said, have you taken the real thing? I think not, if I recall correctly.

OP: They are both helpful. Volume II is tough, but real MCAT asks you to analyze physiological changes in molecular level, so you need both Volume I/II. Plus, some topics in Volume II like descriptions of CAC and glycolysis solidify organic understanding, and amino acid's isoelectric points are good for acid base titrations/polyprotic acid understanding.

But, of course, nothing is a must. Do what you feel is necessary.

You don't seem to understand what consensus means. I stand by my statement: the general opinion on this forum is that TBR molecular bio is too in depth. Is that clearer?

That does not mean, "we unanimously agree that it is too in depth."

And no, I haven't taken the actual MCAT, that is why I did not say, "IMO, after having taken the real MCAT, is that TBR bio is too in depth."

Sorry to have insulted TBR.

 

[ridethecliche]

It depends on how much you know and how you learn.

If learning the details helps you learn the big picture, the TBR is golden. If you know what you need to know and need a brush up, then you should be okay with EK.

Tbh, I used Ek and kaplan. I didn't think EK bio did a great job on everything by itself. I'll see how I did in 2 weeks.

 

[FuturePharm21]

so for bio reviewing content, which is the best from the books I have:

TPR Hyperlearning Bio review, Kaplan Bio review, EK Bio review

and for practice what's the best out of:

TPR Hyperlearning Science Workbook, EK 1001 Bio questions, online Kaplan quizzes/section tests/topical tests.

I realized it's way too much content and I need to be efficient and effective to be productive and I don't like to waste time reading confusing books and I don't like too much detail as the MCAT gives you detail with passages just need to use some background knowledge to improve.

 

[music2doc]

You don't seem to understand what consensus means. I stand by my statement: the general opinion on this forum is that TBR molecular bio is too in depth. Is that clearer?

That does not mean, "we unanimously agree that it is too in depth."

And no, I haven't taken the actual MCAT, that is why I did not say, "IMO, after having taken the real MCAT, is that TBR bio is too in depth."

Sorry to have insulted TBR.

Without revealing too much about my test, I can tell you that there were definitely some important things TBR Bio 2 covered that no one else did that were on my test and having that background made both my PS and BS slightly less painful. I asked about your assumption of consensus because I have never really seen anyone put down BR Bio 2 (sure, their metabolism components section is a bit ridiculous but I had a few related questions that it made easier) and because I found it quite helpful.

 

[Swagster]

Without revealing too much about my test, I can tell you that there were definitely some important things TBR Bio 2 covered that no one else did that were on my test and having that background made both my PS and BS slightly less painful. I asked about your assumption of consensus because I have never really seen anyone put down BR Bio 2 (sure, their metabolism components section is a bit ridiculous but I had a few related questions that it made easier) and because I found it quite helpful.

You're making me worry now. I plan to finish EK for bio review and do passages from TPR and TBR. But if what you say is true for most MCATs, then maybe I should read the BR biology books. I love how TBR puts their review and passages in the same book and wish the other companies did that too.