So I was originally scheduled to take the MCAT on 1/30 but my scores on the AAMC practice tests were plateauing so I decided to push my test date back. I was enrolled in the Kaplan prep course from November to late Jan. I've read the Kaplan books and done the end of the chapter quizes although they have tons of other tests/quizes in their online access (which I got extended until 4/10) that I did not complete. I didn't get into hardcore study mode until winter break (~Dec. 11th) and this quarter I'm a part-time student so I'll have plenty of time to study. Here are my practice test scores in chronological order:
Kaplan diagnostic (early Nov): 19
Kaplan FL#1 (early Dec): 24
AAMC#5 (12-23): 28
AAMC#7 (1-7): 26
AAMC#8 (1-11): 26
AAMC#6 (1-14): 29
AAMC#9 (1-19): 27
My friends thought I was burning out, but I took a good 2 day break before taking AAMC#9. Simply put, I just wasn't ready for the damn thing. I'm trying to decide how I should revise my study plan. I've still got the Kaplan online access which has a bunch of subject tests/quizes/you name it but I also have the EK series and EK 101 passages which I haven't touched and I'm thinking about making the switch. So what's it going to be? Kaplan with online access resources? EK? Other?
Your feedback is golden. Thanks!
It looks as though your understanding is a little shakey. Maybe you understand the concepts but you haven't been enough drilling with questions.
I'd suggest picking up the TPR (The Princeton Review) Hyperlearning books, EK Bio, EK Bio 1001, EK Chem 1001, EK Physics 1001, Orgo 1001, and Verbal 101, and the TBR (The Berkeley Review) books (I bought the gen chem/orgo/physics books but no bio)
Notice I didn't say any EK books (except the EK Bio) but EK 1001. IMO, the EK books and Kaplan books are too superficial if you're not in the mode of thinking/critiquing/analyzing everything. And this is coming from personal experience with both books. The EK Bio book is VERY good but the rest leave a lot to be desired.
If you went along your studies and were like "uh huh okay yeah i get this or i get that" it'll give you a false sense of security.
When I went through my first round of studying a long time ago, the EK books gave me a sense that everything was hurried and explained in way too little detail. For physics (i'm an engineer), I was more than fine with this, but every other section was not that great. And reading the EK Physics I could see how for an average student (or even above average) it would cause problems if you didn't have enough background in it.
So I recommend TPR Hyperlearning books for the content review (where you read to learn/retain/understand the concepts). I think it does a better job than TBR in this regard (especially on organic chemistry where TBR is just terribly and overly written). You won't go wrong with TBR in general chemistry or physics, but if you're going to get TPR hyperlearning books, why go through the material twice? It's not like rereading about F=MA twice in two books is going to make much of a difference, the equation and the concepts and the way they are applied are quite limited and both prep you well so you're better off using your time doing the practice passages then. The only exception to this generalization is where one concept was poorly written (which is HIGHLY VARIABLE FROM PERSON TO PERSON) in one book, and you can use the other source for clarification/reinforcement if necessary. But again, TPRH is pretty solid.
One of the most important things is retention. Probably the most important thing for the matter. And being able to remember something THROUGH UNDERSTANDING is much more pleasant than memorizing rotely. It feels kind of carthartic even.
When I read TPR, it just sticks in my head because they write it for the average guy/gal. To clarify, I have used their books in the past in high school and for a few premed classes (they actually repeated a lot of stuff from their AP PHysics book int heir TPR Hyperlearning course believe it or not!), and I attribute the way they broke down chemistry and physics in easy to understand (non-textbook language) and concise language to my As in those classes.
In fact, if I didn't use a lot of review books for the early/foundational classes, my understanding would be a little more shakey.
But yeah, that's what I like about TPR. It just *makes sense.* And it sticks. And it's not overly written/dense, and not too short like EK to the point where you're like uhhh wtf?
EK may have pretty glossy pictures for instance, but that's crap compared to the TPRH books.
Btw, I'm scoring 35-40s right now on my AAMCs, but take it for what it's worth, as I'm no genius, I'm probably slightly above average when I'm feeling focused and on other days I feel below average.
And don't forget that the people who wrote the TPR books were the people who now created the TBR books (according to TheBerkeleyReview @ here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=9115622&postcount=23).
You might not need the TBR books if you have the Kaplan online material. In my experience, the Kaplan books suck but their practice material (from what I've done so far) has been quite alright. A little detail oriented but nothing that would hurt. Seeing as you plunked down $2000 on a Kaplan course (I bet you feel like you wasted the money now huh?), you might elect not to spend any more money on more than the bare minimum, so it really depends where you're weak.
