<p>I am registered to take the MCAT May 27th, and I know that the majority of MCAT classes have already begun for this spring's round of tests. Even though it seems like EVERYONE is using some sort of prep course, I have decided to study on my own, as many of my friends actually said they didn't benefit a lot from the classes.<br>
I'm wondering if there are a lot of people on cc that followed the same route, and if so, what study materials did you find most useful? (Especially for the biology section, since my memory of my freshman intro bio course is rather foggy)</p>
<p>Thank you! And good luck to those taking the MCAT this month!</p>
<p>I think I benefited a great deal from taking the Kaplan MCAT classroom course. I think BDM also took the classroom course, so you might want to ask him what he thought about it. I don't know how BRM or NCG prepped for the MCAT, so you should ask.</p>
<p>I've used Kaplan materials since high school - it's organized and explained in a manner that makes a lot of sense to me. I can't make heads or tails of Barron's or Princeton Review, so I generally stayed away from them unless I needed more practice tests or something.</p>
<p>What really matters is finding the materials that work for you. The vast majority of the well-known test prep companies will cover what you need to know. You just need to find the manner and presentation that you like best. For me, that was Kaplan. For you, that might be something else.</p>
<p>shades,
thank you for the quick response!
when you say Kaplan materials, do you mean the publications that can be found in bookstores? or the material that they distribute in their prep courses? my understanding is that these are 2 separate things.</p>
<p>I also self-studied. I used the ExamKrackers set of books. I had a friend who used the ExamKrackers books and their audio CDs, and she said that the CDs were helpful. I don't particularly learn by listening, so I skipped the CDs. I loved the books though. I didn't find the physics book terribly good, so I used another physics review book (the name of which escapes me), but I'd also just gotten out of physics, so it was the course for which I needed the least review. I thought that the biology book and the chem books (both orgo and gen chem) were wonderful, and I could take or leave the verbal reasoning book.</p>
<p>The books are much shorter than other companies' review books, but they're dense with information. The information is also presented in a memorable and (occasionally) enjoyable way, so that made them nice to study.</p>
<p>I took the Princeton Review course. I also studied at the same time w/ a couple of friends who were taking the Kaplan course. I didn't see too much of a difference. TPR has their organic chem wheel. Kaplan has their flashcards. That was about it.</p>
<p>You can absolutely achieve the same score w/o a prep course. I took a prep course b/c I had the $$$ and everyone else was doing it. TPR states explicitly that their goal is for every one of their students to get a 30. In other words, prep companies aren't miracle workers. They're looking for you to get a servicable score. But, if you want a 42, you'll have to do your own studying anyway.</p>
<p>The other main difference I noticed b/w TPR and Kaplan was in their practice tests. TPR practice tests are as hard as Kaplan practice tests but w/o the huge curve. So, during the course, you will first take 3 TPR proctored tests and then finish with 2-3 AAMC practice tests. That's rather sneaky of Princeton Review because your score will jump just from the fact you're taking easier tests (whether you're actually improving or not). Kaplan curves were just ridiculous. My friend gave me some of his Kaplan materials. On one test, he missed 26 out of 77 questions on the PS section and Kaplan still gave him a 11. On TPR and AAMC practice tests, you're allowed to miss around 12 questions to get an 11 on the section. Huge difference.</p>
<p>I ended up scoring 30-34 on my TPR tests and 35+ on all six AAMC tests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
when you say Kaplan materials, do you mean the publications that can be found in bookstores? or the material that they distribute in their prep courses? my understanding is that these are 2 separate things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I say Kaplan materials, I mean whatever Kaplan stuff you're using. If you're taking the classroom course, that'll obvously include the books they distribute in the classroom course. If you're just buying Kaplan prep materials, then it won't include the books they distribute in the classroom course. </p>
<p>ginnyvere:</p>
<p>I'm not sure how I feel about Examkrackers. There was a kid in my Kaplan course who used Examkrackers and did poorly on the MCAT, so he was back for Round 2 with Kaplan's prep course. I don't know if he did any better the second time around, though.</p>
<p>NCG:</p>
<p>Practice exams are useful up to a point. I could never score any higher than a 33 on a practice test - I can't remember if the practice test was made by Kaplan or the AAMC, though. On the actual MCAT, though, I did a heck of a lot better. So I guess it's good to see if you'll do 30+, but not necessarily a great predictor afterwards.</p>
<p>I think you'll be just fine not taking a prep course, provided that you're capable of planning out your study schedule independently. I used examkrackers and found the books to be absolutely awesome. I also used my old bio, orgo, and physics books to look up stuff a little more in depth, partially to get a better understanding and partially to get a bit more confident with the material. I also used kaplans a bit but found it to be a bit worse than examkrackers (though there were a few topics such as embryology I believe that were not covered adequately in examkrackers but were in kaplans). </p>
<p>As far as practice tests go, I think that all non-AAMC tests are really bad. Kaplan questions are a lot harder than the real thing for the sciences, which is great for testing more advanced material that people might be more likely to find difficult, but absolutely terrible if you're just trying to get into the groove of taking the test. Kaplans verbal was also different enough from the real AAMC verbal to make it bad for studying (I felt Kaplans was easier). I think the examkrackers tests were a lot better, but still not as good as the AAMC tests. Over the course of taking the 7 AAMC tests, I was able to raise my score 6 points (without studying any additional material) just from the test-taking practice it gave me. So really, I think that that's where you're likely to see the most improvement. </p>
<p>But that's just my experience. Different things seem to work for different people.</p>
<p>My cousin blended Kaplan, Barron's, and Examkracker materials since the 3 had different strengths when it came to mcat prep and she got around a 40 mcat score. She had tons of self-discipline so if you can push yourself to study diligently without a classroom environment or a coach, then go for it.</p>
<p>I definitely agree with akx about the non-AAMC tests. With everyone's comments about how Kaplan's tests are harder than the real MCAT and Princeton Review's are easier (or vice versa, whatever), it never seemed to make any sense to me to take anything but the real tests. Especially when, given how long I had really given myself to study, I probably wasn't going to want to take more than 7 tests anyway. The disadvantage to self studying, in this case, is that you'll have to buy the tests (which are $35 each unless they've gone up since last year), and if you take one of the courses, the AAMC tests are included along with the tests made up by the company. Still, though, the cost is less than one of the courses, so that shouldn't dissuade you.</p>
<p>The main reason that I didn't take a course isn't money. It's basically that I didn't want to be around a bunch of other people who were freaking out about the MCAT. By studying by myself, I was able to keep myself calm and not spend more time worrying than studying. Now, when I really started to freak out was during the wait for the scores....</p>