- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 15
Old breakdown: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=844035
Perceptual Ability: 19
Quantitative Reasoning: 20
Reading Comprehension: 17
Biology: 21
General Chemistry: 22
Organic Chemistry: 24
TS: 22
AA: 21
Studied about 2 months.
I was able to sleep this time, but I had a very strange dream the night before the test. The test was all paper, my desk was wobbly and small. The window was open, and it was breezy. The guy in charge was blasting music, and talking on the phone. The test was marked, but all the answers were wrong. I was incredibly frustrated. I realized that it had to be a dream and then I woke up. It was a very strange feeling going into the test with the dream in the back of my head.
Overall experience - The computer didn't suck as much this time. No delay on going to next question. The calculator still sucked though. Sometimes it wouldn't respond.
PAT: Crack PAT/Achiever
I actually improved a lot in this area; but it felt a lot more difficult. I used mainly crack, but did some achiever. In my opinion, I would just go for achiever. It is probably a bit harder, but it is more similar to the real deal.
I was scoring 20's/21 on crack. Never really did full achiever test. Mainly purchased achiever it to learn TFE.
KeyHole was similar to achiever. Hate those proportion questions.
Cube counting: Seemed a bit harder, but do-able.
TFE: TFE is a joke on crackpat. Most of the answer will not be eliminated by line counting. They seem to make the extra effort to insert 2+ answers that will be possible with the line method. In my test, line counting elminated 0 or 1 most of the time. Seemed simlar to achiever. What I like about achiever is that they tell you how it would look if it was that answer. CrackDAT just shows you the correct image of the answer.
Angle was okay, easier than crack(not by much).
The pattern folding was insane! Nothing like crack pat. I didn't use achiever because I thought it wouldn't be bad. I think it was a lot easier last year. Predicting the overall shape was usually easy; I always got them right on crackpat. But it wasn't the case on the test. There were some really funky foldings. And the one where you have to predict the shades of the shape were a lot harder than crackpat.
Math: Math destroyer(2011)
It's very similar. But the real test is easier. Not concept wise, but number wise; meaning that as you worked through the problem, the numbers work out much more nicely. In my practice, I never really finished on time. I had to skip a few problems, but I finished on time with guessing in like 2 questions.
A lot of questions were exactly the same. There was only 1-2 question where I really didn't have a clue. Know your 3/4/5 triangle 5/12/13. It saves so much time! 2 of the questions I was able to answer instantly because of it.
Reading: Crack Reading
I'm REALLY horrible at reading and English is my only language. I hate it! I thought I would have done a lot worst. I did search and destroy. It worked a lot better in crack reading. It worked okay for most of the passage.
They kept giving me these questions.
"___________ happens because ________________
The statement is true, but the reasoning is false.
The statement is false, but the reasoning is true.
Both statement and reasoning false
Both statement and reasoning true"
DLFSDJ I HATED THOSE QUESTIONS. They never showed up last year!
The last passage had a bunch of reading application. I guessed most of the last one.
Biology: Cliff, Cambell, qvault
I really hate this section. There are so many things you can be tested on, but you are only asked a few. Some of it is luck. The mistake I made last time was using only cliff and kaplan for biology; I had no clue what any of the questions were talking about. Cliff is good, but the biology is so broad and cliff doesn't cover every section. You need to read a lot more than that. I decided to read the campbell book, but only made it halfway. I did qvault and used campbell to read more about the ones I didn't know. This time, it wasn't so bad. Qvault is good pract. I would have missed a few questions without it. Maybe I got lucky.
Chemistry: DAT Destroyer, Chad
The first time, I didn't use chad. Big mistake! It is amazing! He teaches this section so well. All of the things he taught were on the test. Destroyer was good for practice.
Ochem: DAT Destroyer, Chad
Chad does a pretty good job for this section as well. DAT destroyer covers most of it. The real DAT was actually A LOT easier than the dat destroyer. There was only 1 reaction that I had no clue what it did; Chad and destroyer didn't cover it.
Perceptual Ability: 19
Quantitative Reasoning: 20
Reading Comprehension: 17
Biology: 21
General Chemistry: 22
Organic Chemistry: 24
TS: 22
AA: 21
Studied about 2 months.
I was able to sleep this time, but I had a very strange dream the night before the test. The test was all paper, my desk was wobbly and small. The window was open, and it was breezy. The guy in charge was blasting music, and talking on the phone. The test was marked, but all the answers were wrong. I was incredibly frustrated. I realized that it had to be a dream and then I woke up. It was a very strange feeling going into the test with the dream in the back of my head.
Overall experience - The computer didn't suck as much this time. No delay on going to next question. The calculator still sucked though. Sometimes it wouldn't respond.
PAT: Crack PAT/Achiever
I actually improved a lot in this area; but it felt a lot more difficult. I used mainly crack, but did some achiever. In my opinion, I would just go for achiever. It is probably a bit harder, but it is more similar to the real deal.
I was scoring 20's/21 on crack. Never really did full achiever test. Mainly purchased achiever it to learn TFE.
KeyHole was similar to achiever. Hate those proportion questions.
Cube counting: Seemed a bit harder, but do-able.
TFE: TFE is a joke on crackpat. Most of the answer will not be eliminated by line counting. They seem to make the extra effort to insert 2+ answers that will be possible with the line method. In my test, line counting elminated 0 or 1 most of the time. Seemed simlar to achiever. What I like about achiever is that they tell you how it would look if it was that answer. CrackDAT just shows you the correct image of the answer.
Angle was okay, easier than crack(not by much).
The pattern folding was insane! Nothing like crack pat. I didn't use achiever because I thought it wouldn't be bad. I think it was a lot easier last year. Predicting the overall shape was usually easy; I always got them right on crackpat. But it wasn't the case on the test. There were some really funky foldings. And the one where you have to predict the shades of the shape were a lot harder than crackpat.
Math: Math destroyer(2011)
It's very similar. But the real test is easier. Not concept wise, but number wise; meaning that as you worked through the problem, the numbers work out much more nicely. In my practice, I never really finished on time. I had to skip a few problems, but I finished on time with guessing in like 2 questions.
A lot of questions were exactly the same. There was only 1-2 question where I really didn't have a clue. Know your 3/4/5 triangle 5/12/13. It saves so much time! 2 of the questions I was able to answer instantly because of it.
Reading: Crack Reading
I'm REALLY horrible at reading and English is my only language. I hate it! I thought I would have done a lot worst. I did search and destroy. It worked a lot better in crack reading. It worked okay for most of the passage.
They kept giving me these questions.
"___________ happens because ________________
The statement is true, but the reasoning is false.
The statement is false, but the reasoning is true.
Both statement and reasoning false
Both statement and reasoning true"
DLFSDJ I HATED THOSE QUESTIONS. They never showed up last year!
The last passage had a bunch of reading application. I guessed most of the last one.
Biology: Cliff, Cambell, qvault
I really hate this section. There are so many things you can be tested on, but you are only asked a few. Some of it is luck. The mistake I made last time was using only cliff and kaplan for biology; I had no clue what any of the questions were talking about. Cliff is good, but the biology is so broad and cliff doesn't cover every section. You need to read a lot more than that. I decided to read the campbell book, but only made it halfway. I did qvault and used campbell to read more about the ones I didn't know. This time, it wasn't so bad. Qvault is good pract. I would have missed a few questions without it. Maybe I got lucky.
Chemistry: DAT Destroyer, Chad
The first time, I didn't use chad. Big mistake! It is amazing! He teaches this section so well. All of the things he taught were on the test. Destroyer was good for practice.
Ochem: DAT Destroyer, Chad
Chad does a pretty good job for this section as well. DAT destroyer covers most of it. The real DAT was actually A LOT easier than the dat destroyer. There was only 1 reaction that I had no clue what it did; Chad and destroyer didn't cover it.
Last edited:
