DAT Done 9/2/2008 -TS Score seems wrong

So I retook my DAT this summer but I think something is wrong with my TS because both my bio and GC scores are above it and I didn't even do that terrible on OC, I don't get it. I've been reading on here about people with similar issues and I think mine isn't accurate. Here are my scores from the first time I took it and now the retake:

DAT 2007 ..... DAT2008
PAT: 20............ 20
QR : 17 ........... 17
RC : 19 ............ 21 (got pianoed)
Bio : 17 ........... 20
GC : 15 ........... 21
OC :16 ............ 18
TS : 16 ........... 19!!!!!!!!!
AA : 17 ........... 19


Don't you think that 19 seems a little wrong? 😕 I don't understand it. I feel I would be so much more competitive with a 20 for TS. What should I do about this?

I applied to 7 schools instate and private ones. My GPA's are above 3.5 and I have lots of work experience (TA, RA, lab technician). Two+ years of research experience and I wrote a thesis. Have shadowing experience with general dentists and oral surgeons. Good recommendations. Just trying to make myself as marketable as possible.

What do people think? Retake because of the TS and/or the QR? Hope the committees focus on the bio and GC score??? I feel I'm in a strange position with that TS and AA score.


Here is the breakdown from the lastest DAT:

BIO:
There was lots of genetic stuff, for instance questions that dealt with chromosomes, gene regulation, calculating gene frequencies. I would say the most emphasized topic was here and embryology. Also, to my surprise there was a good amount about plants and ecology on my exam. They even presented figures and/or drawings and asked questions related to anatomy of plants or specific types of succession. Nothing impossible to answer if you review those topics, but definitely not what I expected to be asked. All in all, the questions really do come from everywhere in the study of biology. I studied from the Kaplan OUTLINES. These are given to people that pay for their materials but a friend gave me hers when she was done using them. It takes those monstrous chapters and breaks them down into about a 3-4 page outline. That really helped to get the guts of the chapter. Also, I used Destroyer. I did not read on here all the controversy regarding Destroyer until about a week before my latest test. However, I really think that it helped me because the bio section of the book is so random, just like the test. Destroyer really asks you weird question in a disorganized fashion. That's what I think helped me most about it.

GCHEM:
Definitely every thing you expect a GCHEM test to be in my opinion. Lots of questions just asking if you understand thermodynamics - such as whats endergonic/exergonic. What's positive/negative. Acid/base. Atomic theory. Nuclear decay reactions. I really think my test asked me a broad distribution of questions from all areas of general chemistry I & II. The one thing I was happy about on this part of the sciences was that I was able to pick up some time because the calculation questions didn't require that they be worked out completely. That was a big help. I mostly studied Destroyer for this section. The biggest asset was the questions about acid/base chemistry. Destroyer basically retaught me acid/base because I had forgotten everything on how to calculate concentrations, pH, pOH etc. Also, I was a TA at my university for gen chem II for 3 semesters before I took my latest test so that helped me tremendously; when you can teach someone else chemistry, I think you really solidify the concepts for yourself.

OCHEM:
I definitely agree with what most people are saying on here that the reaction questions are very straight forward and if you know the Road Maps from Destroyer and had a pretty good course at you university you will do fine on those questions. However, I had some other completely unexpected questions and a strange distribution of questions. For instance, I had about 5 question on NMR and/or IR spectroscopy questions. I only expected about 1-2 questions and for them to be straight forward. Oh no, the IR questions were not simple (like find the -OH band or the -C=O band). I honestly didn't know what to emphasize on in the graphs and I worked with NMR and IR in my lab for two years. Very strange. I think this is where I might of screwed up and what caused this section to be a little lower than my other on my TS section. Studying for this came from setting in on lectures at my university the summer of my test and Destroyer mechanisms and Road Maps.

PAT:
Can't say much about this section at all. It is what it is. I think I'm pretty good at mentally seeing things in 3D, and that's a definite strength to the PAT test. The angles this time around were a little bit harder to distinguish than I remember from the 2007 test. During the test I was feeling so confident about the section, I thought I was on my way to scoring a 24-25 on this section but I know that those experimental questions can make people feel over confident about their progress because the test is actually smaller than the one you take. I used Kaplan's tests for this and bought DAT Achiever and did all the practice tests. This section just takes a lot of practice, practice, practice.

RC:
Well the first passage was strange, it was about asprin. I read the whole thing and started flying through questions trying not to spend more than about 17 minutes on it.

The second passage was the piano one. Long passage for sure but I knew I had to read it in order to even have a shot. I read the whole thing once over and then started answering. I had to refer back quite a few times but you have a really good idea where the information is located if you've read it once before. I agree that the questions were asked in a very unique way for this passage but you really get a sense for a these tone questions once you've actually read the thing. If you've read it you can keep you time to 17 minutes.

The third passage was nuts and all about chemical signaling pathway with tons of crazy details, almost to the level of reading a hard core journal article. This one took the most time because even after reading the whole passage I knew I had to check most of the answers because they were so specific.

My biggest piece of advice is: if you can read the passage in about 7 minutes you can move pretty quickly through the problems and are able to pick up a few of the tone questions. And my second piece of advice: stay calm. I found that if I was relaxed and not frantic trying to find the answer I could work more quickly oddly enough.

QR:
I practiced so much more for this section this time around than I did for my 2007 test and obviously was expecting to improve my score. This portion of the DAT got so much harder than I remember. I seriously had some questions that I felt were completely out of place. I think about 20 of the questions are "easy" like scientific notation, inequalities, ranking fractions, those sorts. But there other ones are really where you need to step up your game. Lots of questions related to synthesizing data. What the heck does that mean, right? I can't explain anymore than they presented some crazy data and statistics and asked for a type of relationship I had never heard before. This section requires a lot of discipline in the moment. If you can't answer it quickly, pick your favorite letter, click MARK, and move on. If you have to time to come back to it, thats fantastic! But otherwise, you will need to find points on other questions. Can't waste a single second on this test. I used Kaplan, Destroyer and Achiever for this section. Kaplan was pretty tame - not many examples at all. Destroyer had a lot of practice and was able to teach me problems I had never seen before, so I liked what it did for me. And Achiever was more practice with timing and exposing me to more questions. That is the key: #1 Timing. #2 Expose yourself to as many problems as you can. This section, like PAT, take practice, practice, practice.


Retrospectively, I think I should have studied so much more when I was taking the DAT the first time. I think I was too cocky come from a good undergraduate program and felt I would do great on the sciences because my science GPA was so good. Not the case. The DAT takes a lot of review and building problem solving skills. The second time studying I started to notice how I just brushed over the first time and didn't actually learn. I think I'm like a lot of students out there that know this is what they want to do but struggle with performing on standardized tests. I took the first kick in the ass from the 2007 DAT to push me to kick the DAT in the ass in 2008. I want to go to dental school and practice dentistry so bad I couldn't let this test hold me back. The drive to really do well on the DAT, having a lot of materials, keeping the distractions limited and having the discipline to sacrifice some the fun times, are in my opinion, kept me focused and made me ready to take the test again.