- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay, I've finally sat down to write up a test review. It's on the late side, so it may not help many, but I know there are a handful of you still studying hard, so hopefully a little of my feedback will be good. I took my exam on the 1st, but have been traveling around California and had a long list of other stuff to finish up that I had procrastinated on until my test was over. I guess better late than never.
I tend to be longwinded, so this may go for a while.
My scores are off to the left under my name in my predents profile. Just trying to show Pdizzle a little love, cause I think that his site is very well put together.
Okay, all in all, the test was not too bad. But I cannot stress enough how bad your nerves can affect your performance. During biology I was a complete mess (actually during the entire test) and I really felt like my entire mind was running blank. This is where the importance of knowing information down really, really good is important. At a time when you are very stressed like that, the better you know the info, the better you will recall it even when your system is pumping adrenaline.
For me, I thought it made a huge difference banging music VERY loudly the whole way to the center. Really, really try to psych yourself up. I was damn near spinning doughnuts on the way to the center just trying to get into the mood. The test REALLY ISN'T THAT BAD! But the mental battle is tough. So try to just be aware of this and do whatever you can to help get in the groove.
I spent the entire day before going over Destroyer one last time. I wouldn't say to try to cover a ton of new material the day before, but since I had been through Destroyer twice before, it was a way to reassure myself that I knew the material. And some of the bio is nice to have fresh in my mind. There were at least 2 exact bio questions from Destroyer on my exam, but these were also VERY easy questions, that any one of you would have undoubtedly got with or without Destroyer.
In the middle of biology, all the computers in the center froze and we had to wait for an hour in order for them to restart them. They started right back off where we left. During that entire break I tried to calm my nerves, which was slightly helpful, but not really. I really almost left during the break and just rescheduled because I would have been allowed to do that, I figured. For whatever reason, I decided to stick it out.
Bio
This section isn't THAT bad. I can't stress enough that there are MANY, MANY very straightforward questions. Or stuff that requires a little reasoning, but still aren't difficult. There will be a few or five or seven questions that are out there. But you've read this numerous times, so just be prepared to see them. There is nothing I can say that I would have studied, not even all of Campbell, that would have prepared me for the oddball questions. The very best thing you can do for these questions is to narrow down your answer choices. I wouldn't recommend trying to study for these questions. Instead focus on the high yield topics that are likely to show up, cause you will get these questions, and you don't want to miss them.
I used Destroyer, ExamKrackers Bio, Schaums, Cliffs AP Bio, and Campbell. I never opened Kaplan Bio. For any one book, I would say that Cliff's is by far the most helpful, IMO. It addresses the high yield topics in such a well thought out and eloquent way. Many of the topics I felt like I was understanding for the first time as I read through Cliff's even though I am a biology major and have heard it before. I spent a lot of time with Cliff's AP. I read through and made a flashcard for almost the entire second half of the book. The trick to flashcards is that you have to revisit them to keep the stuff semi-fresh in your head. I had easily over 1000 flashcards, and towards the end it was such a pain to keep going through them, but the only way to really cement the stuff. I kept the flashcards organized in piles by what chapter they were in Cliff's, that way if I didn't have time for the entire stack (an hour or three), then I could go through just a chapter. This was helpful.
As I was reading through Cilff's, I would also frequently read through entire chapters of Campbell. While this is overkill, I really think that hearing stuff from more than 1 source helps you think about it in new ways and all the topics begin to click. Stuff that perhaps I wouldn't understand reading through Cliff's would make much more sense in Campbell, and vice versa. I probably read through about 10 full chapters in Campbell as well as a variety of miscellaneous chapters that I would skim through as I read through other sources, such as Destroyer.
At this point, I read through Destroyer. I could answer a lot of the questions already. I thought it was good, but definitely not a guarantee 20+ score. The stuff in Destroyer is just too half way explained. I needed something with more substance to understand what is referred to in the solutions. What Destroyer was good for, however, was so that I could know what to focus on in my other readings. There were many, many topics that I sort of just glanced over in Cliff's or Campbell and then I saw they came up in Destroyer. This was good so that I could go back and have a better grasp on what exactly the high yield DAT topics were. Destroyer was also good in the sense that it provided yet another way to read a the same topic and would help contribute to an understanding in that way.
After going over this stuff, I spent some time with Schaum's Bio. I read through and highlighted almost every chapter in the book, I believe, all but two. However, Schaum's is written HORRIBLY, IMO. I would have been totally lost had I not spent so much time with Cliff's. That would be my advice to anybody: first read Cliff's and memorize it, then start on Schaums. Otherwise, Schaum's is just too dense. After reading through Schuam's once, I read through it a second time, and many of the ideas begin to stick during a second reading that did not really stick during the first. There were also a handful of chapters that I read through and rewrote. I wish I would have done this to more chapters because I really thought it was helpful and far less time consuming than making flashcards, although flashcards are really helpful as well.
EK Bio is really good especially for systems. It is very pretty and well written, but can't really be used as a stand alone guide for Bio. It leaves out way too much. However, there are also many topics in EK that I didn't see elsewhere, which I thought was nice. I read through all of EK once, and much of it a second time, however, I didn't highlight or rewrite or make flashcards. Pay special attention to stuff about bones in EK, since I really didn't see this in any other guide (not even Campbell) except Destroyer. It wasn't on my exam, but I still thought it was good.
As far as the actual bio section, just make sure not to waste TOO much time on the tough questions. There will be a lot of gimme questions that you don't want to rush through. I went ahead and skipped every tough question after quickly picking the best choice. This worked out because I had about 20 mins extra time after I finished science section.
Gchem:
This section really wasn't too bad at all. Like many, many other have said, it was very heavy in conceptual problems. By this, I mean stuff like qualities about ideal gas (not calculations, but stuff like: the molecules have no volume, and elastic conditions), general qualities about different groups on the periodic table (metals are malleable, not an actual question, just an example), periodic trends. When you are studying and have a problem that requires zero calculation, that is an example of a conceptual question. So pay special attention. Although, others have had an exam VERY heavy on calculations, it seems like most have had a conceptual based gchem section.
There were a couple tricky problems that I was stumped on. I knew how to approach it, but my answer just didn't make sense. The rest were not too bad, but may require a slight stretch of what you had previously learned.
There were about 5-10 calculation problems, like others have said, they were set up, I didn't have to solve for numbers. Expecting this, during my last time through Destroyer Gchem I only set up the answer, then checked the solution. I thought this was a good idea to help you get used to seeing stuff only set up.
Okay, for Gchem I started this by reading Kaplan VERY in depth. I made a flash card for just about everything that I didn't know as common sense. This was probably another 500 flashcards. I made sure I had this stuff down pat. Kaplan gchem is good, and it covers most everything you need to know. It doesn't explicitly cover every question, but it does cover every topic.
I also spent A LOT of time reading through my gchem textbook. I probably read through close to the entire book and also worked a lot of the example problems as I would read. Many chapters I read more than once. This was probably overkill, but for me, was really helpful. There was at least 1 question on the DAT that I would have really struggled with (although it was doable) if I had only used other sources without my textbook.
At some point after going through Kaplan gchem, I began working Kaplan subject tests and Destroyer. Both are VERY good. I want to say that you will be set with just Destroyer, but I saw some very good questions in Kaplan, that I really thought were helpful. Not worth 1000 dollars, mind you, but still worth bothering every single person you know for copies of the subject tests.
Orgo:
Straightforward, as many others have said. I got a fair mix of conceptual ones and ones that were just reactions. There was an easy naming one that I screwed up because I didn't study naming very good and another one that kinda stumped me, but shouldn't have been too tough.
I started out with Kaplan for this subject as well. Made another 500-700 flashcards that I went through MANY, MANY times. It would take me an hour or more to get through them, but by the end, I really felt stuff clicking that I didn't even realize that I was foggy on before.
As others have said, Destroyer is good prep for this section. It's good at getting you to notice stuff that is easy to miss when you read through the first time. Kaplan subject tests are also good. But not the end of the world if you don't have them. IMO, it would be better to spend 160 on Destroyer than to drop 1000 on Kaplan, BY FAR.
I also used my textbook heavily for ochem. I think its mainly good for looking over the basics at the beginning of the textbook. The core concepts such as nuclephilicity, base strength (and therefore, acid strength), E1 vs. Sn1, E2 vs. Sn2. This stuff is good to read out of a textbook, IMO.
One other tip, courtesy of fancymylotus, was to photocopy all the destroyer roadmaps. But somehow blank out all the reagents. Then I would make sure I could name the reagent, the entire thing and all the details. This was very helpful. Many times when I see a rxn, I would wonder if having that acid at the end would affect the product or something along those lines. If you know the reagents really well, then you won't have to wonder about that stuff, you will already know it.
PAT:
I was all panicked during this section as well. Worse, I was worried about my science section during PAT! Not good at all. Don't be like me, its those nerves, once again, that make this exam difficult.
The section, all in all was not too bad.
I used CrackPAT. I bought the 10 test edition. I only made it through five of them. My scores were along the lines of 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25. Something like that. I don't have my computer, so I can't see exactly what they were.
I feel part of the reason that they began improving is because of using Achiever. Achiever is good for practicing and there review section of the PAT is WAY better than anything else on the market. Just don't be like me and spend TOO much time going over your mistakes. Look stuff over, but don't waste time. I would have been better off doing an extra Crack or two rather than spending two hours looking over every single Achiever question way in depth.
Topscore for PAT is garbage, IMO. There are too many mistakes in my opinion to even make it worthwhile. I did 1 test, but then just said forget it, and didn't do the rest. My score was a 19 and it felt easy, plus you can't check their answers, so it just leaves you wondering.
For keyhole, this section is a bit tougher than Crack. Not quite as hard as Achiever, but it requires you to look and find one little aspect of the answer choice that is different from others. I would definitely say to look at ALL the choices, don't just go with your first choice. Because you will often look through the rest of the choices and be like, "wait a minute, these two are identical." However, after looking a bit closer, there will be one small side that has a chanfer or something you didn't notice at first. That's why, in this respect, it was tougher than Crack. On Crack, I would almost always get 15/15. On Achiever, I was never that good. First test I missed like 7, next couple I missed around 5.
For TFE, I think that the shapes were VERY simple. Much simpler than things you will see on either Achiever or Crack. I got most of these correct on Crack and Achiever, and I don't really have a good technique. I would look at all the answer choices first and try to determine what was different about each of them. Then I would approach the given sides and only try to look for what I need to in order to distinguish the difference between two of the answer choices. Occasionally, counting lines would help accomplish this goal.
I can't really say if counting lines would or would not work on the real exam. I'm sure it would help narrow down your answer choices, however. But on some of them, you are going to need to distinguish between if it is a dashed line or solid line. Overall, however, the shapes just weren't that bad on the real exam.
For angles, I would say these are very close to both Crack and Achiever. There were a few that were easy for me and many that were tough. My biggest advice for this section is to lean WAY back in your chair. It's also helpful to pull in REAL close and then pull way, way back (thanks jigabodo for this tip). I would also look at the answer choices and then just focus on determining which angle of two is the largest. Always narrowing down your answer possibilities.
The other tip for this section: MOVE QUICKLY. Don't waste time on this section. Just move quickly and use that time for other sections where the time is actually going to help you get the right answer. With angles, you could sit there for an hour, literally, and still it will be a toss up. So move quick. Go with your gut instinct. No more than 30 seconds per, try to get most of them in 15 seconds. This helped me, I think, as I would often have a bit of time left over.
For hole punches: It is easier than Crack in this sense: if the fold is very, very tough, then the hole will generally be easy (not a half hole, not two holes). If the fold is very easy, then there will usually be two holes. I can't remember any half holes, but there may have been some that I am forgetting.
One thing for this section that helped me on Crack was to write out a 4x4 grid and mentally unfold the paper, putting the correct holes on your grid. After doing this for the first few Crack tests, I didn't need to use the whiteboard, except for a few. On the real exam, I had drawn out a bunch of grids during my tutorial and didn't end up needing one of them.
The other tip for this section that I really found helpful was that I needed to start at the completely unfolded paper and go forward fold by fold. This was a huge help when I started working backwards to unfold the paper. In other words, it was much harder for me to jump in and begin unfolding the paper, instead first try watching it fold up, and ONLY THEN begin to unfold it.
Cubes: VERY, VERY easy. No crazy illusion cubes like in Crack (I hated that about that program, such a dumb idea). My only advice is to make sure you get ALL of these correct. Slow down if you have to. I had to slow WAY down since I was almost always missing two of them during my practice tests. This is the 1 section you can get them all correct, so take advantage of that, even if it means an extra 60 seconds. I used Barron's method for this section.
Folding: This section was probably a tad bit harder than Crack. There were a couple I was stumped on for a bit, and took me a while to fold up. There were also a fair amount of easy ones. Achiever is WAY WAY too hard for this section and would drive me nuts. I was usually getting around 13-15 correct on Crack for this section.
For PAT, I had Barron's book and it was good. Probably worth the money for the PAT alone. I didn't use the book for anything else, at all except PAT, way at the beginning of my studying.
Man, I just realized this is like 6 pages, not double spaced on a Word document that I am typing it up on. I'll let you read this over, and make some comments. I'll finish writing it up tomorrow. I'll try to ramble a little less, sorry about how long it is, you'll have to pick through what you think is helpful advice. In the meantime, I promise to finish up and post tomorrow about reading, QR, Achiever scores and whatever else I start to drone on about.🙂
I tend to be longwinded, so this may go for a while.
My scores are off to the left under my name in my predents profile. Just trying to show Pdizzle a little love, cause I think that his site is very well put together.
Okay, all in all, the test was not too bad. But I cannot stress enough how bad your nerves can affect your performance. During biology I was a complete mess (actually during the entire test) and I really felt like my entire mind was running blank. This is where the importance of knowing information down really, really good is important. At a time when you are very stressed like that, the better you know the info, the better you will recall it even when your system is pumping adrenaline.
For me, I thought it made a huge difference banging music VERY loudly the whole way to the center. Really, really try to psych yourself up. I was damn near spinning doughnuts on the way to the center just trying to get into the mood. The test REALLY ISN'T THAT BAD! But the mental battle is tough. So try to just be aware of this and do whatever you can to help get in the groove.
I spent the entire day before going over Destroyer one last time. I wouldn't say to try to cover a ton of new material the day before, but since I had been through Destroyer twice before, it was a way to reassure myself that I knew the material. And some of the bio is nice to have fresh in my mind. There were at least 2 exact bio questions from Destroyer on my exam, but these were also VERY easy questions, that any one of you would have undoubtedly got with or without Destroyer.
In the middle of biology, all the computers in the center froze and we had to wait for an hour in order for them to restart them. They started right back off where we left. During that entire break I tried to calm my nerves, which was slightly helpful, but not really. I really almost left during the break and just rescheduled because I would have been allowed to do that, I figured. For whatever reason, I decided to stick it out.
Bio
This section isn't THAT bad. I can't stress enough that there are MANY, MANY very straightforward questions. Or stuff that requires a little reasoning, but still aren't difficult. There will be a few or five or seven questions that are out there. But you've read this numerous times, so just be prepared to see them. There is nothing I can say that I would have studied, not even all of Campbell, that would have prepared me for the oddball questions. The very best thing you can do for these questions is to narrow down your answer choices. I wouldn't recommend trying to study for these questions. Instead focus on the high yield topics that are likely to show up, cause you will get these questions, and you don't want to miss them.
I used Destroyer, ExamKrackers Bio, Schaums, Cliffs AP Bio, and Campbell. I never opened Kaplan Bio. For any one book, I would say that Cliff's is by far the most helpful, IMO. It addresses the high yield topics in such a well thought out and eloquent way. Many of the topics I felt like I was understanding for the first time as I read through Cliff's even though I am a biology major and have heard it before. I spent a lot of time with Cliff's AP. I read through and made a flashcard for almost the entire second half of the book. The trick to flashcards is that you have to revisit them to keep the stuff semi-fresh in your head. I had easily over 1000 flashcards, and towards the end it was such a pain to keep going through them, but the only way to really cement the stuff. I kept the flashcards organized in piles by what chapter they were in Cliff's, that way if I didn't have time for the entire stack (an hour or three), then I could go through just a chapter. This was helpful.
As I was reading through Cilff's, I would also frequently read through entire chapters of Campbell. While this is overkill, I really think that hearing stuff from more than 1 source helps you think about it in new ways and all the topics begin to click. Stuff that perhaps I wouldn't understand reading through Cliff's would make much more sense in Campbell, and vice versa. I probably read through about 10 full chapters in Campbell as well as a variety of miscellaneous chapters that I would skim through as I read through other sources, such as Destroyer.
At this point, I read through Destroyer. I could answer a lot of the questions already. I thought it was good, but definitely not a guarantee 20+ score. The stuff in Destroyer is just too half way explained. I needed something with more substance to understand what is referred to in the solutions. What Destroyer was good for, however, was so that I could know what to focus on in my other readings. There were many, many topics that I sort of just glanced over in Cliff's or Campbell and then I saw they came up in Destroyer. This was good so that I could go back and have a better grasp on what exactly the high yield DAT topics were. Destroyer was also good in the sense that it provided yet another way to read a the same topic and would help contribute to an understanding in that way.
After going over this stuff, I spent some time with Schaum's Bio. I read through and highlighted almost every chapter in the book, I believe, all but two. However, Schaum's is written HORRIBLY, IMO. I would have been totally lost had I not spent so much time with Cliff's. That would be my advice to anybody: first read Cliff's and memorize it, then start on Schaums. Otherwise, Schaum's is just too dense. After reading through Schuam's once, I read through it a second time, and many of the ideas begin to stick during a second reading that did not really stick during the first. There were also a handful of chapters that I read through and rewrote. I wish I would have done this to more chapters because I really thought it was helpful and far less time consuming than making flashcards, although flashcards are really helpful as well.
EK Bio is really good especially for systems. It is very pretty and well written, but can't really be used as a stand alone guide for Bio. It leaves out way too much. However, there are also many topics in EK that I didn't see elsewhere, which I thought was nice. I read through all of EK once, and much of it a second time, however, I didn't highlight or rewrite or make flashcards. Pay special attention to stuff about bones in EK, since I really didn't see this in any other guide (not even Campbell) except Destroyer. It wasn't on my exam, but I still thought it was good.
As far as the actual bio section, just make sure not to waste TOO much time on the tough questions. There will be a lot of gimme questions that you don't want to rush through. I went ahead and skipped every tough question after quickly picking the best choice. This worked out because I had about 20 mins extra time after I finished science section.
Gchem:
This section really wasn't too bad at all. Like many, many other have said, it was very heavy in conceptual problems. By this, I mean stuff like qualities about ideal gas (not calculations, but stuff like: the molecules have no volume, and elastic conditions), general qualities about different groups on the periodic table (metals are malleable, not an actual question, just an example), periodic trends. When you are studying and have a problem that requires zero calculation, that is an example of a conceptual question. So pay special attention. Although, others have had an exam VERY heavy on calculations, it seems like most have had a conceptual based gchem section.
There were a couple tricky problems that I was stumped on. I knew how to approach it, but my answer just didn't make sense. The rest were not too bad, but may require a slight stretch of what you had previously learned.
There were about 5-10 calculation problems, like others have said, they were set up, I didn't have to solve for numbers. Expecting this, during my last time through Destroyer Gchem I only set up the answer, then checked the solution. I thought this was a good idea to help you get used to seeing stuff only set up.
Okay, for Gchem I started this by reading Kaplan VERY in depth. I made a flash card for just about everything that I didn't know as common sense. This was probably another 500 flashcards. I made sure I had this stuff down pat. Kaplan gchem is good, and it covers most everything you need to know. It doesn't explicitly cover every question, but it does cover every topic.
I also spent A LOT of time reading through my gchem textbook. I probably read through close to the entire book and also worked a lot of the example problems as I would read. Many chapters I read more than once. This was probably overkill, but for me, was really helpful. There was at least 1 question on the DAT that I would have really struggled with (although it was doable) if I had only used other sources without my textbook.
At some point after going through Kaplan gchem, I began working Kaplan subject tests and Destroyer. Both are VERY good. I want to say that you will be set with just Destroyer, but I saw some very good questions in Kaplan, that I really thought were helpful. Not worth 1000 dollars, mind you, but still worth bothering every single person you know for copies of the subject tests.
Orgo:
Straightforward, as many others have said. I got a fair mix of conceptual ones and ones that were just reactions. There was an easy naming one that I screwed up because I didn't study naming very good and another one that kinda stumped me, but shouldn't have been too tough.
I started out with Kaplan for this subject as well. Made another 500-700 flashcards that I went through MANY, MANY times. It would take me an hour or more to get through them, but by the end, I really felt stuff clicking that I didn't even realize that I was foggy on before.
As others have said, Destroyer is good prep for this section. It's good at getting you to notice stuff that is easy to miss when you read through the first time. Kaplan subject tests are also good. But not the end of the world if you don't have them. IMO, it would be better to spend 160 on Destroyer than to drop 1000 on Kaplan, BY FAR.
I also used my textbook heavily for ochem. I think its mainly good for looking over the basics at the beginning of the textbook. The core concepts such as nuclephilicity, base strength (and therefore, acid strength), E1 vs. Sn1, E2 vs. Sn2. This stuff is good to read out of a textbook, IMO.
One other tip, courtesy of fancymylotus, was to photocopy all the destroyer roadmaps. But somehow blank out all the reagents. Then I would make sure I could name the reagent, the entire thing and all the details. This was very helpful. Many times when I see a rxn, I would wonder if having that acid at the end would affect the product or something along those lines. If you know the reagents really well, then you won't have to wonder about that stuff, you will already know it.
PAT:
I was all panicked during this section as well. Worse, I was worried about my science section during PAT! Not good at all. Don't be like me, its those nerves, once again, that make this exam difficult.
The section, all in all was not too bad.
I used CrackPAT. I bought the 10 test edition. I only made it through five of them. My scores were along the lines of 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25. Something like that. I don't have my computer, so I can't see exactly what they were.
I feel part of the reason that they began improving is because of using Achiever. Achiever is good for practicing and there review section of the PAT is WAY better than anything else on the market. Just don't be like me and spend TOO much time going over your mistakes. Look stuff over, but don't waste time. I would have been better off doing an extra Crack or two rather than spending two hours looking over every single Achiever question way in depth.
Topscore for PAT is garbage, IMO. There are too many mistakes in my opinion to even make it worthwhile. I did 1 test, but then just said forget it, and didn't do the rest. My score was a 19 and it felt easy, plus you can't check their answers, so it just leaves you wondering.
For keyhole, this section is a bit tougher than Crack. Not quite as hard as Achiever, but it requires you to look and find one little aspect of the answer choice that is different from others. I would definitely say to look at ALL the choices, don't just go with your first choice. Because you will often look through the rest of the choices and be like, "wait a minute, these two are identical." However, after looking a bit closer, there will be one small side that has a chanfer or something you didn't notice at first. That's why, in this respect, it was tougher than Crack. On Crack, I would almost always get 15/15. On Achiever, I was never that good. First test I missed like 7, next couple I missed around 5.
For TFE, I think that the shapes were VERY simple. Much simpler than things you will see on either Achiever or Crack. I got most of these correct on Crack and Achiever, and I don't really have a good technique. I would look at all the answer choices first and try to determine what was different about each of them. Then I would approach the given sides and only try to look for what I need to in order to distinguish the difference between two of the answer choices. Occasionally, counting lines would help accomplish this goal.
I can't really say if counting lines would or would not work on the real exam. I'm sure it would help narrow down your answer choices, however. But on some of them, you are going to need to distinguish between if it is a dashed line or solid line. Overall, however, the shapes just weren't that bad on the real exam.
For angles, I would say these are very close to both Crack and Achiever. There were a few that were easy for me and many that were tough. My biggest advice for this section is to lean WAY back in your chair. It's also helpful to pull in REAL close and then pull way, way back (thanks jigabodo for this tip). I would also look at the answer choices and then just focus on determining which angle of two is the largest. Always narrowing down your answer possibilities.
The other tip for this section: MOVE QUICKLY. Don't waste time on this section. Just move quickly and use that time for other sections where the time is actually going to help you get the right answer. With angles, you could sit there for an hour, literally, and still it will be a toss up. So move quick. Go with your gut instinct. No more than 30 seconds per, try to get most of them in 15 seconds. This helped me, I think, as I would often have a bit of time left over.
For hole punches: It is easier than Crack in this sense: if the fold is very, very tough, then the hole will generally be easy (not a half hole, not two holes). If the fold is very easy, then there will usually be two holes. I can't remember any half holes, but there may have been some that I am forgetting.
One thing for this section that helped me on Crack was to write out a 4x4 grid and mentally unfold the paper, putting the correct holes on your grid. After doing this for the first few Crack tests, I didn't need to use the whiteboard, except for a few. On the real exam, I had drawn out a bunch of grids during my tutorial and didn't end up needing one of them.
The other tip for this section that I really found helpful was that I needed to start at the completely unfolded paper and go forward fold by fold. This was a huge help when I started working backwards to unfold the paper. In other words, it was much harder for me to jump in and begin unfolding the paper, instead first try watching it fold up, and ONLY THEN begin to unfold it.
Cubes: VERY, VERY easy. No crazy illusion cubes like in Crack (I hated that about that program, such a dumb idea). My only advice is to make sure you get ALL of these correct. Slow down if you have to. I had to slow WAY down since I was almost always missing two of them during my practice tests. This is the 1 section you can get them all correct, so take advantage of that, even if it means an extra 60 seconds. I used Barron's method for this section.
Folding: This section was probably a tad bit harder than Crack. There were a couple I was stumped on for a bit, and took me a while to fold up. There were also a fair amount of easy ones. Achiever is WAY WAY too hard for this section and would drive me nuts. I was usually getting around 13-15 correct on Crack for this section.
For PAT, I had Barron's book and it was good. Probably worth the money for the PAT alone. I didn't use the book for anything else, at all except PAT, way at the beginning of my studying.
Man, I just realized this is like 6 pages, not double spaced on a Word document that I am typing it up on. I'll let you read this over, and make some comments. I'll finish writing it up tomorrow. I'll try to ramble a little less, sorry about how long it is, you'll have to pick through what you think is helpful advice. In the meantime, I promise to finish up and post tomorrow about reading, QR, Achiever scores and whatever else I start to drone on about.🙂
