Which prep books to buy? EK set or PR set?

[Slimy]

I have been studying with PR Cracking the MCAT CBT 2nd edition.

I think it lacks a lot of details

I was planning to buy either EK set or PR review (2010) set

(the ones with separate bio, chem , orgo, physics)

Which one would u guys recommend??

 

Example of EK ones:

http://www.amazon.ca/Examkrackers-McAt-Organic-Chemistry-Orsay/dp/1893858464/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283744152&sr=1-9

 

Example of PR ones:

http://www.amazon.ca/MCAT-General-Chemistry-Review-Princeton/dp/0375427945/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283744104&sr=8-7

[medhopeful64]

I have been studying with PR Cracking the MCAT CBT 2nd edition.

I think it lacks a lot of details

I was planning to buy either EK set or PR review (2010) set

(the ones with separate bio, chem , orgo, physics)

Which one would u guys recommend??

 

I'm using both right now (except the PR is a 2008 set), and both have their pros and cons. The hyperlearning PR set actually is quite detailed (is the Cracking the MCAT much less?), and it's easy to read, has lots of examples, and the practice workbook has a ton of questions for you to drill through. The EK books are less detailed and give you a good MCAT intuition (ie, they try to make you memorize less stuff, and understand proportionalities, concepts, etc). What I don't like about EK though, is that they don't give any examples in the body of the text (so when you jump into the questions, you sort of feel lost). I find their questions/passages harder than the PR. The PR practice problems though, are so numerous in number, that once I've gone through them all I feel pretty confident in the material. I'm using PR for physics/gen chem and EK for bio/orgo...since PR kind of goes into too much detail for the biological sciences, a lot of which isn't absolutely necessary to memorize. Sometimes EK doesn't explain concepts as thoroughly, so if you are weak in that area, you might want to go with PR for that subject. I've been mixing and matching both, and I think they are both great books. Good luck!

[Guest Forward22]

hmm

Are you referring to the hyperlearning PR? or the new PR review books from bookstores?

 

I used EK 1001 ones, and PR review books 2010 ones. I find them with decent details, with efforts to help you memorize important concepts (not hyperlearning i didn't take a course, i'm assuming u aren't as well)

 

I am not sure about EK sets as I didn't use them...

[suziep100]

Hi

I have EK Verbal Reasoning books and Princeton's Verbal Reasoning book, both are 2010 versions. Because verbal reasoning was my weakest area, I bought verbal reasoning books from different companies and practiced the hell out of them. I am willing to sell each books for $20.00 each. The EK Verbal Reasoning books are $20.00 total, which include the "guide" book, which normally sells for $16.00 and $30~40ish for the 101 passage practice book (the book with 14 full length practice passages) so you will be saving ~$20.00 at least. As for the Princeton book, I have the one with brain picture. You would normally buy it for $41.00 CDN but I offer it at $20.00, hence you will be saving $21.00

 

Send me a message if you are interested. If you are interested in Kaplan science reviews, I also have some interesting deals.

[medhopeful64]

Hey, so I used both and I think if you have a fairly decent bio/orgo background (i.e. took physiology and organic chemistry) EK for those two sections is a great way to go. PR has WAYYYY TOO MUCH detail for bio and organic, speaking from experience, so half way through my course last year I picked up the EK books for bio and I found them much more useful. The only thing with EK I find is that you have to get used to the writing style a bit, and be able to pick up on the small important details they don't emphasize. For PS, stick with PR, they have great explainations, practices and I found EK confusing to read and understand. For verbal, I liked using the EK strategy, but the PR passages as they were much more reflective of actual MCAT verbal passages. You can buy the EK VR book for extra practice, but I found their questions weren't on par with real MCAT questions.

 

Totally agree. I'm using EK for bio/orgo (since PR goes into way too much detail) and PR for physics/chemistry (EK is confusing for these, I agree). Are the PR passages a better indication of the real MCAT verbal? I did all the EK ones and didn't do so well..

[medhopeful64]

I sure thought so. The PR passages are more difficult to understand, more advanced vocabulary and they have alot of those dreaded 'history and philosophy of art' passages that makes everyone cringe so you get plenty of practice. After a while, I started to look forward to the arts based passages because I found myself interested in the topics strangely enough. When I did the AAMC tests after doing 40 of the PR passages I felt much better prepared. The question types were pretty similar and the way EK tells you to just read and understand works well the PR passages. Funny enough, I find the EK strategy works better for the PR passages than the EK passages themselves. I didn't do to well on EK (started with 8, got up to 12), but PR I found that the questions were good enough that I could find ways to improve instead of trying to find the tricks to the questions (as in EK) which isn't reflective of the MCAT.

 

Hmm, really...ok then I guess I'll put that PR verbal book to use. Thanks for the info!