Well...this is my first post on sdn- but I got a ton of useful info from these DAT prep breakdowns that helped me out tremendously on my dat- so i feel like I can give a little back with a breakdown of my own....
25 PAT
19 RChttp://dkmg2azsloi0e.cloudfront.net/images/smilies/redface.gif
24 QR
26 BIO
26 GC
26 OC
26 TS
24 AA
im sure d-schools are going to assume im e.s.l. when they look at my scores...that CR score doesnt look so bad but it was 19= 67th percentile which is equivalent to about a 16 in qr. i dont know why that is and it seems kind of ridiculous but i cannot complain.
PAT-I really only used crackpat and it was very helpful for most areas but some of there stuff is just insanely overdone. I think 5 tests is plenty too, the rest was overkill for me.
Cubes-hello? who is telling crackdat to make optical illusions with the cubes?has anybody ever seen that? the cube figures on the dat were half the size and not optical illusions! I understand trying to make it harder so we are prepared for anything, but seriously this was such a misrepresentation of the cube section.
Hole Punching-Very good overall...but i had no half-hole punches if u know what i mean...also there was a fold that the dat had on like 5 of my q's that wasnt in crackpat but i saw it in the 2009 ada sample, where they fold the paper over 3/4ths of the way- meaning fold the paper so 1/4 of the paper is 1 thickness and 3/8ths is 2 thicknesses while 3/8ths of the original area is paperless... hard to explain but thats what it is.
Keyholes- more focused on sizes on the real dat, but this was still good prep
tfe- on the money
pattern- pretty good, but the dat had more folding diff irregular shapes that werent symmetrical or immediately obvious.
angles-on the money
RC- used crack reading- it was ok...i ranged from 18-23 on these so i guess this was representative of the level of difficulty of the dat passages but the question types were very different. At the end of each of my passages i was asked "which is the most likely closing sentence for this passage?"- they should start adding that q into crack exams instead of "where would i most likely find this passage?" I used s&d and it served me well...only thing that killed me was coming into the room late from my break- man did those 15 minutes fly by...i got back with a min to spare but somebody was getting fingerprinted and i had to wait to resign in...came to the test with 4 min burned off and it really freaked me out. honestly 4 min isnt that much so if i wouldve held it together i'd have done better cus my passages were pretty easy...o well, u win some u lose some-id say i had an overall win...
QR- I used Math Destroyer first and it was sooo hard at first but i worked at it and eventually i got good enough to do 95% of it...Then I started using crackmath- which was good bcs it had different types of questions to practice than destroyer- it felt more like the test bcs its timed too... i did 20 tests my first test after going thru math destroyer was a 20 and my las 10 scores were 25-30, i think the last 15 tests r way easier and the crack pple just got lazy with it. overall i think practice was ultimately the most important thing, but math destroyer was more representative of the section than crackmath. but i say getting crack is still worth it
BIO- What a ridiculous section! i thought i did much worse i had to guess blindly at a few- i dont know what im allowed to say about the test but it wasnt so random in the topics it tested, but the ways they asked questions were odd- i will say this; know cliffs bio and understand it- meaning dont memorize a definition that you wouldnt be able to apply- bcs 90% of the q's were application q's. Destroyer was great too for randomness that u actually needed to know and Datqvault was also good for the thoughtful q's.
GC- Straight up destroyer- with all the math set up for u so barely any calculations. a couple strange conceptual ones though.
OC- Everything was easy, straight up if u know destroyer except for two questions... one was a rexn that i actually googled and it doesnt exist/occur
the other was a pretty difficult lab q that im still not sure about...but really that was just a random q, no way to study for that...but the rest was actually very easy.
Crack science- Came for free with my bundle package...the most ridiculous thing ive ever seen...asking about quarks?? craziest thing ive seen in a while, those science sections would stump professors...i went to my orgo prof and asked if she had heard of a certain rexn they had in there- she said ya its a chemical test shed have to look up in one of her graduate school textbooks...i just dont understand why they would do that? wouldnt it be easier to just ask really simple q's like how many bonds does carbon make? i mean why go through the trouble of researching graduate level orgo to make such terrible prep materials, when there r so many easier ways to misrepresent the dat??
now its time to enjoy the little bit of summer i have left...
25 PAT
19 RChttp://dkmg2azsloi0e.cloudfront.net/images/smilies/redface.gif
24 QR
26 BIO
26 GC
26 OC
26 TS
24 AA
im sure d-schools are going to assume im e.s.l. when they look at my scores...that CR score doesnt look so bad but it was 19= 67th percentile which is equivalent to about a 16 in qr. i dont know why that is and it seems kind of ridiculous but i cannot complain.
PAT-I really only used crackpat and it was very helpful for most areas but some of there stuff is just insanely overdone. I think 5 tests is plenty too, the rest was overkill for me.
Cubes-hello? who is telling crackdat to make optical illusions with the cubes?has anybody ever seen that? the cube figures on the dat were half the size and not optical illusions! I understand trying to make it harder so we are prepared for anything, but seriously this was such a misrepresentation of the cube section.
Hole Punching-Very good overall...but i had no half-hole punches if u know what i mean...also there was a fold that the dat had on like 5 of my q's that wasnt in crackpat but i saw it in the 2009 ada sample, where they fold the paper over 3/4ths of the way- meaning fold the paper so 1/4 of the paper is 1 thickness and 3/8ths is 2 thicknesses while 3/8ths of the original area is paperless... hard to explain but thats what it is.
Keyholes- more focused on sizes on the real dat, but this was still good prep
tfe- on the money
pattern- pretty good, but the dat had more folding diff irregular shapes that werent symmetrical or immediately obvious.
angles-on the money
RC- used crack reading- it was ok...i ranged from 18-23 on these so i guess this was representative of the level of difficulty of the dat passages but the question types were very different. At the end of each of my passages i was asked "which is the most likely closing sentence for this passage?"- they should start adding that q into crack exams instead of "where would i most likely find this passage?" I used s&d and it served me well...only thing that killed me was coming into the room late from my break- man did those 15 minutes fly by...i got back with a min to spare but somebody was getting fingerprinted and i had to wait to resign in...came to the test with 4 min burned off and it really freaked me out. honestly 4 min isnt that much so if i wouldve held it together i'd have done better cus my passages were pretty easy...o well, u win some u lose some-id say i had an overall win...
QR- I used Math Destroyer first and it was sooo hard at first but i worked at it and eventually i got good enough to do 95% of it...Then I started using crackmath- which was good bcs it had different types of questions to practice than destroyer- it felt more like the test bcs its timed too... i did 20 tests my first test after going thru math destroyer was a 20 and my las 10 scores were 25-30, i think the last 15 tests r way easier and the crack pple just got lazy with it. overall i think practice was ultimately the most important thing, but math destroyer was more representative of the section than crackmath. but i say getting crack is still worth it
BIO- What a ridiculous section! i thought i did much worse i had to guess blindly at a few- i dont know what im allowed to say about the test but it wasnt so random in the topics it tested, but the ways they asked questions were odd- i will say this; know cliffs bio and understand it- meaning dont memorize a definition that you wouldnt be able to apply- bcs 90% of the q's were application q's. Destroyer was great too for randomness that u actually needed to know and Datqvault was also good for the thoughtful q's.
GC- Straight up destroyer- with all the math set up for u so barely any calculations. a couple strange conceptual ones though.
OC- Everything was easy, straight up if u know destroyer except for two questions... one was a rexn that i actually googled and it doesnt exist/occur
the other was a pretty difficult lab q that im still not sure about...but really that was just a random q, no way to study for that...but the rest was actually very easy.
Crack science- Came for free with my bundle package...the most ridiculous thing ive ever seen...asking about quarks?? craziest thing ive seen in a while, those science sections would stump professors...i went to my orgo prof and asked if she had heard of a certain rexn they had in there- she said ya its a chemical test shed have to look up in one of her graduate school textbooks...i just dont understand why they would do that? wouldnt it be easier to just ask really simple q's like how many bonds does carbon make? i mean why go through the trouble of researching graduate level orgo to make such terrible prep materials, when there r so many easier ways to misrepresent the dat??
now its time to enjoy the little bit of summer i have left...
