ummm... kaplan isn't bad, right?

[junkct]

If I'm using ONLY kaplan to study for the MCAT is that unwise? I'm also using EK101 and kaplan/aamc practice tests, but only kaplan books for content review... is there info I'd be missing from studying kaplan? or should this be sufficient?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Rutgers06]

If I'm using ONLY kaplan to study for the MCAT is that unwise? I'm also using EK101 and kaplan/aamc practice tests, but only kaplan books for content review... is there info I'd be missing from studying kaplan? or should this be sufficient?

I pretty much only used the Kaplan to study and it worked out well. The books cover pretty much all the topics you're going to need to know for the MCAT.

 

[Malayna]

If I'm using ONLY kaplan to study for the MCAT is that unwise? I'm also using EK101 and kaplan/aamc practice tests, but only kaplan books for content review... is there info I'd be missing from studying kaplan? or should this be sufficient?

It seems risky to only use one material source, because the other ones might have a better approach or problem solving technique. I'm planning to mix my books up. After going through the first few chapters in review books from different companies, I have found that Boondock's list is pretty good. I've seen it get posted in a few threads, so just keep looking for it.

Here's what my plan is (at the moment at least, because I keep changing it )

Biology: EK text BR/PR passages
O Chem: BR text BR/PR passages
G Chem: BR text BR passages (like Bookdock's said, "best by far")
Physics: BR text BR/PR passages
Verbal: EK text EK/PR/BR/K passages

From what I've done so far (and what I've read in numerous threads at SDN), this really is the best combination of materials.

 

[Tourterm]

I found the Kaplan review books, aamc practice tests, and some undergraduate text books to be more than sufficient. No harm in looking through other texts and trying them out. Not because they cover different material, but because you may find one style better than another. In the end, you're going to have to go with what works best for you. As for actual content, it's all essentially the same.

 

[junkct]

Well I took AAMC 4 and it seemed like there was a lot of bio material that hadn't been covered in the kaplan review notes (mainly about the nervous system and stuff). kaplan cursorily covered it, but not nearly as in depth as the test went. The only way I was able to get a decent score on it was pulling knowledge from my upper division biology class in college... maybe AAMC 4 is a little harder than normal? I also felt the PS was tougher on this one (compared to AAMC 3)

 

[J ROD]

It seems risky to only use one material source, because the other ones might have a better approach or problem solving technique. I'm planning to mix my books up. After going through the first few chapters in review books from different companies, I have found that Boondock's list is pretty good. I've seen it get posted in a few threads, so just keep looking for it.

Here's what my plan is (at the moment at least, because I keep changing it )

Biology: EK text BR/PR passages
O Chem: BR text BR/PR passages
G Chem: BR text BR passages (like Bookdock's said, "best by far")
Physics: BR text BR/PR passages
Verbal: EK text EK/PR/BR/K passages

From what I've done so far (and what I've read in numerous threads at SDN), this really is the best combination of materials.

Follow this list of materials. BR and PR are the best as far as indepth materials. Verbal - EK verbal 101

 

[halekulani]

eh
the only real knock on kaplan is their verbal...