If any of you have suggestions on study tips for the MCAT (i.e. recommendations for a Kaplan/Princeton course/self-studying), and how to prepare for a medical school acceptance interview, please feel free to post them on this thread.

Appreciate it

Also, I've heard from friends that the Princeton course is better recommended than a Kaplan course. Is there any reasons as to why?

Self study from Kaplan books unless you have no science background. The Princeton books have way too much information necessary and the passages are much longer than the AAMC ones. Courses are a waste of money and the instructors can be either very good or very poor. The only thing good about TPR is the writing sample, but all you need is their formula - though I think they're revamping the MCAT and might be removing the written portion, but that's in 2015.

Most of the MCAT has the knowledge in the passage it's mostly about reading quickly and using logic to determine the answer. Just do a lot of practice tests to build your stamina - esp for verbal.

I posted an article about professional school interviews here: http://www.macinsiders.com/showthrea...9#p ost187709

The prep courses are honestly a waste of money if you've taken the courses that cover MCAT content in uni before; content-wise the MCAT covers 1st year science and basic organic chemistry (basic enough for you to get by without ever having taken OChem in university). Self-studying is almost definitely the way to go unless you feel you really need to have someone there to keep you on track.

If you're going to self-study, I'd suggest to Examkracker's MCAT set for review. I had access to both Examkrackers and Princeton Review materials and, like Lois said, Princeton Review goes far too into depth (I can't comment on Kaplan since I've never used the materials).

The best advice I can really give is to do as many MCAT style practice questions as possible, prepare properly for the written section (It's probably the easiest section to do well on, but it requires some technique), make sure you get the online practice full-lenght tests that the AAMC sells (They're the most representative of the MCAT), and focus on your weaknesses more than giving equal coverage to all the review (You have to remember, for your areas of strength you've likely gone through the content in at least 2 courses in school already, focus on things that are more likely to actually trip you up).

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

If you're going to self-study, I'd suggest to Examkracker's MCAT set for review. I had access to both Examkrackers and Princeton Review materials ...

I thought the Exam Crackers 101 Verbal Passages book was good for practice. But be careful because they can be easier than the actual AAMC tests. They're good for increasing your speed.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

The prep courses are honestly a waste of money if you've taken the courses that cover MCAT content in uni before; content-wise the MCAT covers 1st year science and basic organic chemistry (basic enough for you to get by without ever having taken OChem in university). Self-studying is almost definitely the way to go unless you feel you really need to have someone there to keep you on track.

This.

I'm currently taking TPR's MCAT course (shelled out a lot of cash to do it :\), and I took it because I haven't devoted nearly enough prep time over the past half year or so when I decided I wanted to write. This time management issue isn't because of a lack of drive, but I'm also a full time Masters student writing a thesis, and so the balancing act is quite hard.

However, I do think it was a wise decision. They made me do a baseline test (as part of their "Your score increases" guarantee), and my scores have already raised about 5 points (overall). Particularly in the sciences where I'm a bit weaker (having a math background). The vast number of practice tests you have access to is great. Also you can request to have your essays graded on up to 10 practice tests which is crucial when you're in the early stages of studying.


As for Princeton vs. Kaplan, Princeton seems to have superior VR coaching, when compared with what a friend told me about Kaplan**. But one complaint I do have is that the attitude toward the writing sample is to simply be "adequate." Nobody's mentioned how to excel in the writing sample, simply how to do "well enough." Given TPR's formula, I can never seem to get better than an R, but I did manage to get a 6 on one essay when I wrote it "my own way" (though it was likely a fluke)

**This is likely the best anyone can do, given that probably no one has taken both courses.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

This.
As for Princeton vs. Kaplan, Princeton seems to have superior VR coaching, when compared with what a friend told me about Kaplan**.

**This is likely the best anyone can do, given that probably no one has taken both courses.

I borrowed a copy of TPR from a friend and had the Kaplan books. I found that the Exam Krackers books & AAMC tests & reading a lot to begin with is actually the best strategy.

TPR passages are way longer than the AAMC tests and when I did the practice test it really threw me off after I was consistently scoring 11s and 12s on Kaplan/AAMC/EK. I just didn't find their practice questions to be representative of what you'll be tackling.

Odd, the longer length of the TPR ones (compared with AAMC's) usually translates into me finishing the passage quickly. Did you not find that to be the case?

EDIT: Oh at any rate, I was refering to the VR instruction in the TPR course. The instructor gave a lot of really great tips.

Right now I'm liking EK for Bio, and TPR for Physics and Chem. TPR's Science review is quite good so far, and I dare say I'm too weak in PS to use just EK. But if you're good at chem and phys, go EK. Orgo I haven't started yet, but I'll probably favor EK, not because I'm particularly good, but the Orgo on the MCAT is so basic even I can handle it, lol.

VR, I read the EK book and started with the 101 Passages. I got a 9 on an un-prepped MCAT (with my mohter constantly interrupting me and vacuuming, lol) and the same on my first 101 test, but we'll see, hopefully that wasn't a fluke. I think my minor's really kicking in, though, so I'm probably not a good person to take advice from, lol.

/twocents

BTW, anyone have a rating for the Princeton HyperLearning Workbooks? I would really like some Chem and Phys practice, essp for using equations, solving problems, etc.

Also, I haven't done any of TPR practice tests yet - they worth anything? I've heard they're supposed to be harder, but I think I'd rather have harder than easier, lol

i found EK orgo really easy,but only got 4 in VR in EK 101 1st test EK Bio is pretty good as well. But i dont find it good for physical science. Any recommendation for Physics and Chemistry practice?

Originally Posted by Mowicz

As for Princeton vs. Kaplan, Princeton seems to have superior VR coaching, when compared with what a friend told me about Kaplan**. But one complaint I do have is that the attitude toward the writing sample is to simply be "adequate." Nobody's mentioned how to excel in the writing sample, simply how to do "well enough." Given TPR's formula, I can never seem to get better than an R, but I did manage to get a 6 on one essay when I wrote it "my own way" (though it was likely a fluke)
.

I can imagine the essay:

"Consider the point made by individual X on the acceptability of the present model of medicare. Accepting this as an axiom, a chain of inferences follows a priori upon the fixing of a particular logic. However, note that the 14th inference on the chain contradicts the aforementioned principle Y, which we earlier argued is a tenet of human reasoning! Therefore the argument employed by individual X is inherently fallacious from a human standpoint by contradiction."

I learned from experience that they like 'more grand' (i.e. illogical use of universal generalization) points in most humanities courses, haha.

*Edit: except philosophy courses, generally speaking. Philosophical arguments, I find, are generally more reliant on logical principles and precise argumentative mechanics than, say, historical ones.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Odd, the longer length of the TPR ones (compared with AAMC's) usually translates into me finishing the passage quickly. Did you not find that to be the case?

EDIT: Oh at any rate, I was refering to the VR instruction in the TPR course. The instructor gave a lot of really great tips.

For me, I liked to pace myself in a similar way to keep myself on track and the longer passages threw me off - but I think the old TPR strategy was to do really well on the other passages at the sacrifice of one passage (which I thought was strange).

I've found that different people had different strategies to succeed. I liked the mix of Kapan's and EK. TPR was the best for writing sample, but the PS/BS books had way too much unnecessary information. They give you most of the information in the passages and it's really all about logical reasoning.

I think TPR's strategy is still the same with VR (do 6 well, guess on one), according to it's books at least. Perhaps I got lucky and have a great instructor, he constantly criticizes this approach.

For the BS/PS, I agree that there's way too much info. But for me this is ideal since I'm learning much of the material for the first time. It's likely the case that someone with a bio/Chem background wouldn't need so much information.

So the take home point is, the different courses have differing strengths and weaknesses. If you want to take one (or just get the books) then it largely depends on what you need from them.