TPR Bio vs. Kaplan Bio

[Oriolebird21]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I will probably be getting TBR Bio now, along with EK Bio for the MCAT (which I'll start studying for in about 9 months),

but solely for learning new material before that, what do you guys recommend? TPR or Kaplan (both are the 2010 edition)? Or should I just study the EK Biology (without doing problems or passages), then re-read it when the time comes?

Also, is the EK1001 for biology worth it? I heard there were tons of errors in the 2004 edition.

 

[Erythropoietin]

dont spend money on content book for bio; you can review topics online and ur bio textbook.
if you really want to though, tpr is enough for content

 

[johnisles2011]

I do recommend getting a content book. Either one is probably enough. They can really help you focus your studying. Internet and bio textbooks are too diffuse and require a TON of discipline. You'll also probably waste extra time sifting through the extraneous stuff on the internet/bio 101 book, and that time is probably worth the money at the end of the day.

 

[MedPR]

I've found the EK Bio book to be sufficient.

dont spend money on content book for bio; you can review topics online and ur bio textbook.
if you really want to though, tpr is enough for content

I do recommend getting a content book. Either one is probably enough. They can really help you focus your studying. Internet and bio textbooks are too diffuse and require a TON of discipline. You'll also probably waste extra time sifting through the extraneous stuff on the internet/bio 101 book, and that time is probably worth the money at the end of the day.

I agree that a content book probably isn't necessary for Bio, but I also agree that the <$100 you spend on a single MCAT book is worth not having to hassle with sorting through the AAMC BS outline. With an MCAT specific book, you can also be assured that, assuming you go through the entire book, you won't miss any topics that you might if you do it with a non-mcat specific book.