TBR vs TPR Content Only

[StilgarMD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Simple question

in SN2ed's guide, he says strictly speaking for content, TBR and TPR aren't that different with either being acceptable and it amounting to a style preference. i was wondering if this still held true. optimally, SN2ed would chime in, but anyone who has experience with both could help me out here.

 

[jHustle]

Both are good and people have solely used one or the other to score over 35 on the mcat. There are some thing in one set that aren't in the other and vice versa. You can't go wrong with either.

 

[Godric]

Ive only used TBR for physics, chem, orgo (I attempted bio for content as well, burned out from it at some point nothing made sense, switched to tpr, much much better). However content wise almost everyone (3 people) I know have told me after doing TPR for content and then doing TBR problems, they felt ill prepared, so they redid content with TBR and just stuck with it.

On a sidenote I think youd get more bang for your buck if you used tbr just because of the sheer amount of passages they have versus the passages in the TPR books. Each tbr chapters has 14 passages, with the exception of physics with 8, with 5 chapters each book, and two books, this adds up to ALOT of practice.

 

[StilgarMD]

i own both sets already lol i went a little manic, but on your note, i think ill continue with TBR for content.

 

[SN2ed]

With the recent updates for BR Physics, I'd say BR wins that category. TPR is generally regarded as better than BR for Bio content review. For Gen Chem and O-Chem, I'd lean towards BR. It's important to keep in mind that BR, unlike TPR actually updates their content review books using student feedback.

 

[StilgarMD]

Thanks SN2ed. thats interesting, though im curious who found that out, the greater number of revisions for TBR suggests that to be the case.

 

[danny89]

So the best way to do Bio is TPR content and TBR passages, right?
I heard EK is not the way to go(it's too condensed).