TBR is NOT better than EK

[XOT]

---

Members don't see this ad.

After having just completed the entire 10 sections of TBR physics, I am not convinced that it is better than EK (which I was using before TBR). I think TBR is emphasizing math, calculation, and equation memorization, which in essence is useless for the MCAT. What I appreciate about EK is it is more conceptual and helps you to THINK deeply about subjects.

I especially disliked the first 5 sections ("physics I") of the TBR physics. Maybe the last 4 sections are better conceptually?

I was just surprised by how much support and recommendation TBR gets on this forum. I really do not see it. Maybe its soley based on the amount of passages they offer? I do like the explantions they give for the answers. But overall, for reviewing topics, I did not think TBR was very strong.

Just to mention, I have the 2009 edition. I don't know if things have changed since then.

 

[muhali3]

Yeah, the new edition is significantly better. I used at least two calculations tricks from it on the real thing. Saved me a good amount of time. Yeah, but TBR is mostly good for the passages imo. I did use it for content review too, but I combined it with Wikipremed and some KhanAcademy.

 

[Temperature101]

Hi OP, thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it will make all other PR/EK/Kaplan buyers like myself more confident, especially when it seems like people suggest that TBR is the greatest thing since sliced bread and is the only chance at getting a 35+.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any input regarding the other sciences?

Thank you

Don't be fooled by the OP opinion...If you can get your hands on TBR Physics and Gen Chem, I suggest that you do it ASAP. It is much better than EK/Kaplan IMO...Don't know too much about TPR.

 

[PingPongPro]

OP you are wrong. Maybe you prefer EK's approach compared to TBR, which is fine, but I think TBR is the best physics source by a longshot.

I've also used TPR, EK, TBR, and Kaplan, but TBR is hands-down the best Physics mcat book. I can see why someone might slightly prefer one over the other in terms of learning the content, but most MCAT books are all saying the same thing differently.

TBR Physics passages are by far the best source of physics passages.

 

[ak21]

OP you are wrong. Maybe you prefer EK's approach compared to TBR, which is fine, but I think TBR is the best physics source by a longshot.

I've also used TPR, EK, TBR, and Kaplan, but TBR is hands-down the best Physics mcat book. I can see why someone might slightly prefer one over the other in terms of learning the content, but most MCAT books are all saying the same thing differently.

TBR Physics passages are by far the best source of physics passages.

👍 lets not forget Berkeley bio either..

 

[Donald Juan]

I only used TBR, and not EK, so I can't really comment so much on the difference. But, I believe TBR focuses a lot on math and equations because those are the subjects that kill most students who are used to having a TI-83 in their lap whenever they do any calculations.

My mcat was definitely more calculation heavy than the practice AAMC's, but, of course, you should take that with a grain of salt. I've heard plenty of people say the opposite, that their recent mcat was more concept based.

I used TBR, my PS was a 13.

 

[XOT]

Trust me, I have no reason for making the statement I made other than my disappointment in TBR. I really, really think that if you have a decent background in physics (from taking the class), than EK will definetly help you conceptually. There are so many examples I can give that are found in EK that are not present in TBR. For example, how to read displacement vs time graphs (or velocity vs time graphs); how to conceptualize friction in an accelerating car; the very tough concept of conservative and nonconservative forces; reverse collision and real-life concepts of impulse; I also found the descriptions on machine better in EK than TBR; so many conceptual ideas in the Fluids sections found in EK was also lacking in TBR (although I did like TBR review of blood vessels), and many more such ideas.

Like I said, I think if you want A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING of physics, EK is better. I really feel that TBR stresses calculations and equation memorization more (which is not very helpful on the MCAT).

With that said, I do feel that TBR gives nice passages, with much better explanations than EK. But I am starting to wonder how helpful the passages are when many people who have taken the MCAT say sometimes you get passages that you will not understand (whereas all the passages I have done in my edition of TBR have been very easy to read and the questions were pretty hard).

As for the other science sections, I can not really say much about General Chem as I have not started using my TBR for that section. I have used the Organic Chem, and I found it decent; I really thought EK did not have enough information and lacked the usual conceptual method found in other subjects. I actually liked TPR for O.CHM. I used EK for Bio, supplemented with physiology textbooks.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

I used both TBR and EK, and I can tell you they serve almost two completely different purposes.

In my experience, TBR helps with timing (if you can finish a TBR passage in 6 minutes, a real FL passage will go much quicker since it's less calculation heavy) and is really good for people who understand things better by knowing every little detail. TBR content is almost enough, detail and depth wise, that you can use the books to study for an actual course on the subject.

EK, on the other hand, is for people who are confident in their content or quickly become overwhelmed if there's too much information thrown at them. EK does a really good job of teaching you HOW to take the MCAT passages. Its goal isn't really to provide you with enough passages - like TBR does, so you can improve your timing and general question solving strategies - rather it tries to teach you how to approach questions and passages. The content in the EK books are more of a "background" so you know enough to start practicing strategies.

That being said, the EK verbal is much better than the TBR verbal in every respect (at least I thought so).

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Donald Juan]

OP, the mcat will most likely test you both conceptually and mathematically. Both of these skills help.

 

[XOT]

I don't think many people are getting my point- basically, I think that TBR is written more like a text book (relying heavily on how equations are derived) and EK places emphasis on how to think about concepts in ways that will enhance your understanding of them. For EK, sometimes it takes very in depth conceptualization of ideas to understand what they are taking about (a great example is the conservative and nonconservative forces topic). This type of method is found only rarely in TBR

 

[PingPongPro]

I don't think many people are getting my point- basically, I think that TBR is written more like a text book (relying heavily on how equations are derived) and EK places emphasis on how to think about concepts in ways that will enhance your understanding of them. For EK, sometimes it takes very in depth conceptualization of ideas to understand what they are taking about (a great example is the conservative and nonconservative forces topic). This type of method is found only rarely in TBR

I feel compelled to respond (defend TBR) simply because of how much I've learned from them.

I think everyone would agree that their teaching methods differ. I also think that you and many others don't understand the true value of TBR books. It seems like you are trying to compare the content review portion of EK and TBR independent of the passages. The deeper concepts may not be as apparent in TBR's chapter contents, but these are all taught/refined during the passages. A lot of people mistakenly separate the learning part with the practicing part. TBR's approach combines these two things, which helps reinforce concepts better imo. Understanding the concepts might take a little bit more work, but it also increases the likelihood of you remembering how to apply a concept 10 weeks later.

 

[liveoak]

It's like the school you attend.

It doesn't matter.

It's all up to yourself.

Lame answer, but it's true.

 

[XOT]

I feel compelled to respond (defend TBR) simply because of how much I've learned from them.

I think everyone would agree that their teaching methods differ. I also think that you and many others don't understand the true value of TBR books. It seems like you are trying to compare the content review portion of EK and TBR independent of the passages. The deeper concepts may not be as apparent in TBR's chapter contents, but these are all taught/refined during the passages. A lot of people mistakenly separate the learning part with the practicing part. TBR's approach combines these two things, which helps reinforce concepts better imo. Understanding the concepts might take a little bit more work, but it also increases the likelihood of you remembering how to apply a concept 10 weeks later.

I would actually agree with you on that- the passages on TBR are indeed much better than EK, but I think you should have a strong and deep conceptual understanding of specific physics topics so that you can actually apply them to the passages. So it comes down to how a person wants to learn- acquiring the knowledge first and than apply, or learning the underlying concepts from practice.

Also, as I stated before, don't you feel that the physics passages in TBR are much easier to read and understand than the passages that will show up on the MCAT?

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

After having just completed the entire 10 sections of TBR physics, I am not convinced that it is better than EK (which I was using before TBR). I think TBR is emphasizing math, calculation, and equation memorization, which in essence is useless for the MCAT. What I appreciate about EK is it is more conceptual and helps you to THINK deeply about subjects.

I especially disliked the first 5 sections ("physics I") of the TBR physics. Maybe the last 4 sections are better conceptually?

I was just surprised by how much support and recommendation TBR gets on this forum. I really do not see it. Maybe its soley based on the amount of passages they offer? I do like the explantions they give for the answers. But overall, for reviewing topics, I did not think TBR was very strong.

Just to mention, I have the 2009 edition. I don't know if things have changed since then.

I hate responding in threads like these because (1) it's generally unprofessional and reeks of homerism and (2) it is driven by emotions more than a post should be. Despite that, I'd like to respond.

First and foremost, you said a great deal when you mentioned having an older version of the book. It's changed to a significant extent since that version. The book you are using in my opinion lacks a little in chapter 3, chapter 8, and chapter 10. But it's still extremely helpful in terms of passages and teaching you how to think your way through a test. The new book addressed those shortcomings and is better in so many ways.

I was one of the editors (glorified proof reader with a cool title) on the new book, so I want to tell you about the background and work that went into it. All of us were asked to rank the questions in every chapter by a few categories.

• 1) Conceptual vs. Math

• 2) Hard, Medium, Easy

• 3) Doable from passage vs. doable from background info vs. both

• 4) Experiment passages vs. Application passages

You get the picture. All of us compared notes and the questions were moved around and changed so that there was an ideal balance in every chapter. It teaches to the entire range.

We were told to emphasize answer explanations more than anything else because quite honestly that is what matters most. In certain chapters he added more tricks. In other areas of the text, he added more concepts and great ways to visualize the material. We were asked to evaluate how readbale and useful the tricks were. IMO, there are so many great tricks in the book that it's worth it for those alone. Many you'll find in the answer explanations and they make you go, gee, I should of thought of that.

Speaking of which, I have to disagree about graphs. If you read the explanation to pretty much every graph-based question, you get a strategy on how to attack graph questions. That is where it sticks best, when you are reviewing a mistake on a question you've thought about. They do a great job with graphs in the context of the questions.

As a few people have mentioned (thank you), BR physics emphasizes several great concepts. In chapter 1, which no matter how you slice it is a math heavy chapter, they have passages and questions that make you conceptually address wind resistance and changes in the medium. They mix other topics into their questions. They get you ready for today's MCAT, which as many people who have taken the MCAT have mentioned has both math-based questions and conceptually-based questions.

In the answer explanations, he's made it a point to show a conceptual/visualization solution and a math solution in most questions. That allows students the choice of how they want to attack questions. That is what I found most useful. Having taught various subjects a few years ago, this book fits exactly what I would have wanted as a teacher. It attacks material from multiple perspectives, gives the best perspective on things like lenses and mirrors I have ever seen, and would make my life in office hours so much easier than before.

I understand that you chose to use the older book, so you don't know how much better the new one is. I also realize that many of the people refuting your post used the newer books, so it's not a direct comparison. But the version of the book you are using is very good for getting people ready for the MCAT, which is why it has gotten the great accolades that it has. There's a reason why the book is so well liked (at many places besides just SDN). I'm sorry you didn't have a great experince so far, but after you take the MCAT I'm figuring you'll have a better feel for exactly what BR physics does for you. Had you used the latest version of physics, I'm sure you'd have a different tune.

I'm not sure why so many people use the 2009 version (there weren't very many printed), but it's the version that has the most problems. Just out of curiosity, how many pages do you have in each book and what is the cover like?

 

[XOT]

Another thing that I appreciate about EK, that is rarely found in TBR, is how EK connects topics from different science sections- for example, the lever machine in the physics book is connected to how muscles and bones work in the biology book. You CAN NOT underestimate this type of conceptualization for the MCAT- and it is not commonly found in TBR

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

XOT:

With each subsequent post you are getting more adament. I get that and appreciate your passion. I think two points need to be made. The first has to do with exactly which book you are using. The second is that the people in this thread who have already taken the MCAT have a unique perspective that gives them insights you only get after you've sat for the real exam. Here are the quotes from people who have taken the MCAT in this thread.

I used at least two calculations tricks from it on the real thing. Saved me a good amount of time.

My mcat was definitely more calculation heavy than the practice AAMC's, but, of course, you should take that with a grain of salt. I've heard plenty of people say the opposite, that their recent mcat was more concept based. I used TBR, my PS was a 13.

OP, the mcat will most likely test you both conceptually and mathematically. Both of these skills help.

The deeper concepts may not be as apparent in TBR's chapter contents, but these are all taught/refined during the passages. A lot of people mistakenly separate the learning part with the practicing part. TBR's approach combines these two things, which helps reinforce concepts better imo. Understanding the concepts might take a little bit more work, but it also increases the likelihood of you remembering how to apply a concept 10 weeks later.

I'm not sure why you want to keep fighting this point so much, but stop for a moment and realize those two points. You didn't use the current book and you haven't taken the actual MCAT. After you take your MCAT, honestly assess what helped you most, and then you'll see why the books are as useful as they are.

If you can tell me the page count and cover of your books, I might be able to offer some insights.

 

[kehlsh]

After having just completed the entire 10 sections of TBR physics

lol!

 

[XOT]

What I really find hilarious is how a person who makes his living from selling a product is supposed to convince me that his product is better than the others. This forum is used to discuss our futures (as pre-med students who are preparing to enter medical school). It should not be used to commercialize products. That is ridiculous.

By the way, I know what the real MCAT is like because I have done the practice tests.

Part one of my physics manual has 285 pages and part two also has 285 pages. If you say that the new edition is better--than I believe you

 

[ModernAlchemist]

What I really find hilarious is how a person who makes his living from selling a product is supposed to convince me that his product is better than the others. This forum is used to discuss our futures (as pre-med students who are preparing to enter medical school). It should not be used to commercialize products. That is ridiculous.

By the way, I know what the real MCAT is like because I have done the practice tests.

Part one of my physics manual has 285 pages and part two also has 285 pages. If you say that the new edition is better--than I believe you

BerkReviewTeach has helped more pre-med students in their path to medical school than you will ever meet in your entire life. If he was just some product peddling salesman, he would not be allowed to post on this forum. He RARELY advocates for Berkeley Review products explicitly and only does so with just cause when he thinks it will help. He is a beloved member of this forum. You are new here so I can understand your skepticism, but trust him, because he has excellent advice.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

What I really find hilarious is how a person who makes his living from selling a product is supposed to convince me that his product is better than the others. This forum is used to discuss our futures (as pre-med students who are preparing to enter medical school). It should not be used to commercialize products. That is ridiculous.

By the way, I know what the real MCAT is like because I have done the practice tests.

Part one of my physics manual has 285 pages and part two also has 285 pages. If you say that the new edition is better--than I believe you

This is why I hate responding in these types of threads. I try my best to be neutral and offer insights based on what my experience was like studying and teaching, completely independent of who I work for. I try not to respond to threads with specific materials or courses mentioned but have to admit that threads like these are personal more than they should be. I wanted to defend the books I'm a small part of. It has nothing to do with selling or commercializing; it's that you took up and kept up an opinion I disagree with. I'm sorry you feel this way about my charatcer, but that's an expected face-value perspective.

For what it's worth, the actual MCAT is a moving target. The people at AAMC do an excellent job of varying what it covers from exam to exam. Some people say it's nothing like the AAMC practice exams while others say it mirrored a passage or two from an AAMC exam. The point is, if you are basing what the real MCAT is like on AAMC exams, then you should expand your perspective a little. That is a key point lost in the rhetoric here. Take it for what it's worth, but be ready for anything on your real exam.

Thanks for the page counts. What cover did it come with?

 

[salim271]

BerkReviewTeach has helped more pre-med students in their path to medical school than you will ever meet in your entire life. If he was just some product peddling salesman, he would not be allowed to post on this forum. He RARELY advocates for Berkeley Review products explicitly and only does so with just cause when he thinks it will help. He is a beloved member of this forum. You are new here so I can understand your skepticism, but trust him, because he has excellent advice.

👍👍👍, BRTeach is one of the best members on this site. There used to be members who were EK and Kaplan reps, but I think they have their own forums now so those reps dont come on here anymore to answer questions about their respective books.

By the way, I know what the real MCAT is like because I have done the practice tests.

lololol, maybe it will be like the practice tests, maybe it wont be. Many people dont think their exams are anything like the practice tests.

 

[KindofBlue]

What I really find hilarious is how a person who makes his living from selling a product is supposed to convince me that his product is better than the others. This forum is used to discuss our futures (as pre-med students who are preparing to enter medical school). It should not be used to commercialize products. That is ridiculous.

By the way, I know what the real MCAT is like because I have done the practice tests.

Part one of my physics manual has 285 pages and part two also has 285 pages. If you say that the new edition is better--than I believe you

Now I'm convinced the OP is either trolling or doesn't know how to read.
Where did BRTeach ever advertise stuff?
He really doesn't even need to be here, the product sells itself because it's good and people know it works.
You admitted that EK teaches more concepts but TBR has better/more practice passages. Does that mean one is better than the other? No. It means they're for different people.
Stop making inflammatory posts and accusations here man. Nobody said EK was bad.

 

[Maxine450]

Though the BR physics book is great for concepts, I feel like there are not enough calculation-based problems in the book. I wish there were 100 problems per section like every other subject. I'm not sure why there aren't. I ended up buying the NOVA physics book to supplement, because I didn't feel like I had a great handle on the calculations. (best to be prepared).

Edit: BTW I disagree that EK is better than TBR. They don't really do a good job on explaining the answers or teaching the material. For people like me who've forgotten everything in Physics, TBR/Nova was way better.

 

[Hotshy]

I'm a big EK fan I really am. It was the only prep company I used to prepare for the MCAT. But I'm not going to lie, I knew that EK was somewhat scarce on the physical sciences. I don't think I could have gotten a 13+ in physical sciences using EK alone, there are just some content gaps that all the conceptual coaching can't make up for. But I was tired of studying and was content with taking an 11 in PS.

I even tell my friends to make sure that if they use EK that they supplement it with something else. I'm happy with my MCAT score, but if your undergraduate physics course wasn't intensive like mine was, you are going to need something else. My friends that have scored 12+ in the PS section have all used TBR.

EDIT: Just to add I was extremely satisfied with EK bio 🙂, that is by far the section that EK prepare you the most for. When I took my actual MCAT that was the section I was actually looking forward to.

 

[lilqu]

You guys are so obnoxious.
These threads create unnecesary debate and either arguments has positives and negatives. Why couldnt the op just keep it to himself, there are threads out there have established the approach of different prep books, stop acting like your opinion is absolute and go study kty 🙂

 

[ManBroDude]

In my opinion, you can't beat Berkeley's Chemistry books (Gen Chem and O- Chem). I'll bet most people agree. TBR Physics is debatable. I didn't even purchase TBR Bio and just skimmed through EK Bio. Verbal is owned by EK 101.

 

[mightymoose02]

You guys are so obnoxious.
These threads create unnecesary debate and either arguments has positives and negatives. Why couldnt the op just keep it to himself, there are threads out there have established the approach of different prep books, stop acting like your opinion is absolute and go study kty 🙂

I think the moment people realized that the OP has never taken the MCAT... this thread died. There were really good posts but... lilqu is right... OP should have kept it to himself until he's taken the real MCAT.

I know for sure The Berkeley Review people don't measure themselves against ExamKrackers. They measure themselves against the real MCAT and try to get their students ready. This is how everyone should be. Who cares which book is better anyways. They are pretty much the same.

Besides... when was the last time EK actually REVISED their stuff? Never? hm... I wonder why...

 

[XOT]

I actually never meant for this post to become into a debate. Everyone has opinions on which study material is better. In fact, I purchased TBR solely because it came highly recommended in this forum. So it was not me that opened this discussion in the first place- it has always existed.

It was the "Berkley Rep" who made this into debate. From my very first post I was only pointing out why I think EK material is more conceptual-based. Any reply on why someone would agree or disagree is welcomed and does NOT need to become into a debate. I intended this post to be used so that I can personally KNOW if I have the same feelings as others who have used both TBR and EK and therefore can be confident that I am using these material most efficiently.

I think that people that are unable to reply to a statement respectfully and are annoyed by meaningful discussions are children.

 

[btc8]

I think they're both good for different reasons. I don't think one is better than the other, but having used both, I'd recommend TBR solely due to the amount of practice passages.

 

[kehlsh]

I actually never meant for this post to become into a debate.

Troll much? look at your thread title, dude

 

[btc8]

Troll much? look at your thread title, dude

This is pretty glaring. What is also glaring is that if we keep feeding the troll, he will grow. 😎

 

[XOT]

It is funny that you take offense to a subject that is not personal at all. Why on earth would anyone get offended if I state the a certain prep book is better than another? I must say, anyone that is offended by this is in a sad mental state. WOW

 

[Donald Juan]

Another thing that I appreciate about EK, that is rarely found in TBR, is how EK connects topics from different science sections- for example, the lever machine in the physics book is connected to how muscles and bones work in the biology book. You CAN NOT underestimate this type of conceptualization for the MCAT- and it is not commonly found in TBR

Ok, this is the clear indication that the OP is a troll, if he had actually used TBR he would have seen that they combine subjects constantly, specifically physics with genchem and orgo with bio, the same way the mcat does.

 

[cinamin]

anyone that is offended by this is in a sad mental state. WOW

Ha... but you have to realize this is an MCAT forum.. and a lot of people here are either overly OBSESSED with the MCAT and/or have just taken it, are about to take it, etc... so everyone on here is pretty much on edge. Obviously posting something against TBR is going to cause an uproar. I took the test 2-3 weeks ago and will report back, as I solely used EK and think it screwed me immensely for Bio.... if I could do it over again, I would have definitely purchased the TBR bio books.. EK bio doesn't go into much detail on the newer topics being tested and is somewhat outdated IMO. The physics/chem is fine in either case I would think (unless you need some serious help in these subjects)... both subjects are very basic. But then again, I could have bombed my PS so I'll report back on how "basic" that section was. My advice is to try a variety of materials.. seeing things in a different way can broaden your understanding of a subject...oh and keep in mind, OP, that different strokes work for different folks... so while EK might have been better for you, to argue about something so subjective is a pointless waste of time. Some people think EK is better, some people think TBR is better.. some think neither or both.. that's why there are different prep companies that are ALL successful.. if any company was TRULY 'better' than another... don't you think the others would go out of business? Eh eh? Think about it 😉

 

[ISUBird100]

Ha... but you have to realize this is an MCAT forum.. and a lot of people here are either overly OBSESSED with the MCAT and/or have just taken it, are about to take it, etc... so everyone on here is pretty much on edge. Obviously posting something against TBR is going to cause an uproar. I took the test 2-3 weeks ago and will report back, as I solely used EK and think it screwed me immensely for Bio.... if I could do it over again, I would have definitely purchased the TBR bio books.. EK bio doesn't go into much detail on the newer topics being tested and is somewhat outdated IMO. The physics/chem is fine in either case I would think (unless you need some serious help in these subjects)... both subjects are very basic. But then again, I could have bombed my PS so I'll report back on how "basic" that section was. My advice is to try a variety of materials.. seeing things in a different way can broaden your understanding of a subject...oh and keep in mind, OP, that different strokes work for different folks... so while EK might have been better for you, to argue about something so subjective is a pointless waste of time. Some people think EK is better, some people think TBR is better.. some think neither or both.. that's why there are different prep companies that are ALL successful.. if any company was TRULY 'better' than another... don't you think the others would go out of business? Eh eh? Think about it 😉

Agreed. Each company writes the material in a different way, so what may work for one person may not work for another. Having only had the basic pre-reqs (plus a nuerobio class), I wish I had gotten a bio book that went more in-depth (I used EK to study). For someone who has a ton of science classes (and did well in them), they would probably benefit more from an EK over a TBR book.

Long story short, use what works best for you!

 

[Swagster]

@XOT Dude, you've dropped six posts to reiterate your point. What's up with that? Not sure if TBR came to your house and kicked your dog, but you have got some of your facts backwards. TBR has both conceptual and calculations. They mix them really well. Read their answer explanations.

I have both the older physics books and the newer ones, and none of my books have 285 pages. Do you even have the books? Did you read past chapter 1?

I found that TBR explained concepts better than EK especially in the later chapters. That's why I stuck with TBR and put EK aside. They explain things the way you answer questions. They have great tricks for solving math questions faster and tips for recalling concepts. Just like Don Juan said, they mix different topics in their passages all the time.

Like many have said already, which book is better is a personal preference. For me it wasn't even close.

 

[whiteshadodw]

i used TBR for a bit, and definitely liked it for a bit, and then just got sick of it eventually. but then after today's test i can definitely say that it helped me a LOT for at least 2-3 passages in my PS section. i would say you should definitely use TBR for PS and ochem. for some things you can supplement with a textbook. i find some things that TBR explains very crappily (i mail ordered the books in 2009):

-nuclear physics is just trash in TBR (no offense TBR, but I learned more from 5 minutes of reading a textbook than I did in the 2-3 pages of the 1st ch of chemistry I)
-van der waals equation needs some work, the explanation is extremely confusing if not entirely wrong for being too generic (ie, if a gas expands, the corresponding change in pressure is always less than what it would be)
-interference/optics section is a little weak. the optics is good, but the lack of understanding in any slit experiment is clearly present.

aside from those few things that i found very poorly done, i thought TBR PS and ochem was leaps and bounds better than any EK stuff. of course, the issue is that you'll always get some problems with any prep company. ideally if you had 1-2 years to study, maybe you could use kaplan, TBR, EK, and TPR.

i also agree with the comment that choosing between EK and TBR is like choosing between 2 schools. it'll mostly depend on you and how much time you're willing to put.

i will say this though, there were a lot of passages on today's test that i felt like i had seen in TBR. they didn't seem that bad, but if i hadn't used TBR i think i might have been doomed. you have to start to understand how experiments are done, because all of bio today was mostly experiments and clinical application stuff.

 

[MDminded]

i used TBR for a bit, and definitely liked it for a bit, and then just got sick of it eventually. but then after today's test i can definitely say that it helped me a LOT for at least 2-3 passages in my PS section. i would say you should definitely use TBR for PS and ochem. for some things you can supplement with a textbook. i find some things that TBR explains very crappily (i mail ordered the books in 2009):

-nuclear physics is just trash in TBR (no offense TBR, but I learned more from 5 minutes of reading a textbook than I did in the 2-3 pages of the 1st ch of chemistry I)
-van der waals equation needs some work, the explanation is extremely confusing if not entirely wrong for being too generic (ie, if a gas expands, the corresponding change in pressure is always less than what it would be)
-interference/optics section is a little weak. the optics is good, but the lack of understanding in any slit experiment is clearly present.

aside from those few things that i found very poorly done, i thought TBR PS and ochem was leaps and bounds better than any EK stuff. of course, the issue is that you'll always get some problems with any prep company. ideally if you had 1-2 years to study, maybe you could use kaplan, TBR, EK, and TPR.

i also agree with the comment that choosing between EK and TBR is like choosing between 2 schools. it'll mostly depend on you and how much time you're willing to put.

i will say this though, there were a lot of passages on today's test that i felt like i had seen in TBR. they didn't seem that bad, but if i hadn't used TBR i think i might have been doomed. you have to start to understand how experiments are done, because all of bio today was mostly experiments and clinical application stuff.

I told you so 🙂 TBR ALL THE WAY.

 

[whiteshadodw]

I told you so 🙂 TBR ALL THE WAY.

the thing is, i got sort of annoyed by TBRs approach for AAMC exams 3-7(maybe 8). however, for 10 and 11, TBRs approach worked quite well. another thing i'd change for TBR is the following:

-less rotational motion, and more periodic motion stuff (water waves, mass spring, pendulums. this has been a huge topic on the aamc practice exams, and even on the real administrations that i've taken). there seems to be like 3-4 passages on rotational motion, and maybe 1 at most on periodic motion.