- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
I wanted to give a breakdown of my DAT score and comment on my approach and compare my performance on the real DAT to that of the various practice test materials that I used. I studied 5-7 hours/day for 2 months; 1 month taking notes, 2 weeks reviewing notes, 2 weeks taking practice tests.
Real DAT
18 PAT
16 QR (spent only last week studying.. big mistake)
18 RC
19 BIO
19 GC
20 OC
19 TS
18 AA
PAT:
What I used: CrackDATPAT
How it compares to the real thing:
CrackDATPAT is quite a bit easier than the real DAT, based on my experience. I took the first 8 tests and the scores I received for them are as follows:
18, 19, 20, 21, 20, 19, 21, 23
I thought I killed this section on the DAT. I honestly was shocked to see that I only scored an 18, especially after seeing that 23 (98%ile) score on the practice test I took the day before my exam. I was expecting at least a 20, closer to a 21-23, based on how I felt during the test. I honestly don't know if the scaling has just gotten tougher (fewer questions wrong corresponds to lower score) or I just ****ed up on more questions than I thought. Anyways, the main thing that caught me off guard was how the pattern folding section emphasized being able to visualize what shape folds would come together to form. If you ever took Crack, you know that the only requirement to do well in Pattern Folding is to be able to re-orient shaded sides. The actual DAT has some challenging questions that require you determine the overall shape and not just the orientation of the sides relative to each other.
QR
What I used: Chad's Videos and Quizzes, first 3 DATQvault practice tests.
How it compares to the real thing:
DATQvault is significantly easier. Chad's videos are also not much help for this section. My scores for the first three DATQvault tests were: 19, 18, 19. Speed is the name of the game here. I knew how to do almost every single problem type, which is why I put this section off so long. I just didn't realize that, not only do you have to be able to solve a given problem, but you also have to develop a reflex for each problem type so that you don't even have to think about it because the time constraints are so severe. If you just know how to do all the problems like me but you have to stop and think and carefully reason through them, then this section has already defeated you.
RC
What I used: CrackDATReading; first four tests
How it compares to the real thing:
I scored 18, 20, 21, 20 on these tests. Like PAT, I was shocked to see that I only got an 18. Is it possible that the scaling has gotten even more severe this year? I felt confident in all but about 7 questions. Anyways, Crack was easier imo. Crack overemphasized tone and inference questions, which I am actually better at than fact-retrieval based questions. My DAT's passages consisted almost entirely of quickly locating various minutia and I kind of guessed on the last 5 questions because I ran out of time.
BIO
What I used: Cliffs AP Bio, KBB, DATQvault
How they compare to the real thing:
Honestly, I felt that neither books were very good prep for the real thing. I felt stumped by about 8-10 questions even though I knew both cold. I think DATQvault was a fairly good representation. My DATQvault scores for this section are as follows:
19, 20, 18, 19, 20
GC
What I used: Chad's videos, DATQvault, DAT Destroyer
How they compare to the real thing:
I am by far the most disappointed with my performance on this section. I knew all the material backwards and forwards and, on the actual test, I knew how to do every single problem. Why did I get a 19? My section involved about 10 questions that were pretty heavy on calculations (4-5 steps) and I just didn't have time to do 5 or 6 questions. I did every problem from Chad's quizzes the day before and only missed 4 out of 138. I also scored 21, 22, 22, 26, 24 on the first five DATQvault tests. DATQvault is great for conceptual questions. I knew everything I needed to know for this section 100% but I was not efficient enough with some of the more intensive calculation problems. Neither Chad's nor DATQvault is really sufficient practice for solving a variety of Gchem word problem calculations in the amount of time required but they will teach you all the background knowledge necessary to solve those problems. Again, practicing calculations is key and I am so pissed because my performance on this section is nowhere near an accurate representation of my Gchem knowledge. To give you an idea of how boss I am at Gchem, I answered 85/100 questions correctly in DAT Destroyer untimed on my first attempt but I am just slow as hell at calculations without consistent practice.
OC
What I used: Chad's Videos, DATQvault, DAT Destroyer
How they compare to the real thing:
Again, I don't know if Chad's is sufficient for this section. It is important to see reactions presented in a variety of contexts and Chad's quizzes did not really test knowledge of many of the most important reactions he presented; he taught them well, just did not test sufficiently in quizzes. DATQvault was awesome prep for this; harder than the real thing, but great, especially because you can do a bunch of problems just for one reaction type at a time (like just do 10 straight Wittig rxn problems, etc.). DATQvault scores: 17, 18, 19, 17, 19, 18. I was only scoring about 50% in DAT Destroyer (out of first 150 problems). Imo, DAT Destroyer is overkill for Ochem but is at an appropriate level of difficulty for Gchem.
Anyways, I think I will be taking this test again. I know I can do better and the actual studying process should only take me about 4 weeks now that I have all my notes ready to go. I think my biggest mistake was only spending about 10-14 days working problems outside of those from Chad's quizzes. My studying was too heavy on passive review and I did not emphasize practice problems nearly as much as I should have. Hopefully, I will also be able to sleep the night before the DAT next time.
Real DAT
18 PAT
16 QR (spent only last week studying.. big mistake)
18 RC
19 BIO
19 GC
20 OC
19 TS
18 AA
PAT:
What I used: CrackDATPAT
How it compares to the real thing:
CrackDATPAT is quite a bit easier than the real DAT, based on my experience. I took the first 8 tests and the scores I received for them are as follows:
18, 19, 20, 21, 20, 19, 21, 23
I thought I killed this section on the DAT. I honestly was shocked to see that I only scored an 18, especially after seeing that 23 (98%ile) score on the practice test I took the day before my exam. I was expecting at least a 20, closer to a 21-23, based on how I felt during the test. I honestly don't know if the scaling has just gotten tougher (fewer questions wrong corresponds to lower score) or I just ****ed up on more questions than I thought. Anyways, the main thing that caught me off guard was how the pattern folding section emphasized being able to visualize what shape folds would come together to form. If you ever took Crack, you know that the only requirement to do well in Pattern Folding is to be able to re-orient shaded sides. The actual DAT has some challenging questions that require you determine the overall shape and not just the orientation of the sides relative to each other.
QR
What I used: Chad's Videos and Quizzes, first 3 DATQvault practice tests.
How it compares to the real thing:
DATQvault is significantly easier. Chad's videos are also not much help for this section. My scores for the first three DATQvault tests were: 19, 18, 19. Speed is the name of the game here. I knew how to do almost every single problem type, which is why I put this section off so long. I just didn't realize that, not only do you have to be able to solve a given problem, but you also have to develop a reflex for each problem type so that you don't even have to think about it because the time constraints are so severe. If you just know how to do all the problems like me but you have to stop and think and carefully reason through them, then this section has already defeated you.
RC
What I used: CrackDATReading; first four tests
How it compares to the real thing:
I scored 18, 20, 21, 20 on these tests. Like PAT, I was shocked to see that I only got an 18. Is it possible that the scaling has gotten even more severe this year? I felt confident in all but about 7 questions. Anyways, Crack was easier imo. Crack overemphasized tone and inference questions, which I am actually better at than fact-retrieval based questions. My DAT's passages consisted almost entirely of quickly locating various minutia and I kind of guessed on the last 5 questions because I ran out of time.
BIO
What I used: Cliffs AP Bio, KBB, DATQvault
How they compare to the real thing:
Honestly, I felt that neither books were very good prep for the real thing. I felt stumped by about 8-10 questions even though I knew both cold. I think DATQvault was a fairly good representation. My DATQvault scores for this section are as follows:
19, 20, 18, 19, 20
GC
What I used: Chad's videos, DATQvault, DAT Destroyer
How they compare to the real thing:
I am by far the most disappointed with my performance on this section. I knew all the material backwards and forwards and, on the actual test, I knew how to do every single problem. Why did I get a 19? My section involved about 10 questions that were pretty heavy on calculations (4-5 steps) and I just didn't have time to do 5 or 6 questions. I did every problem from Chad's quizzes the day before and only missed 4 out of 138. I also scored 21, 22, 22, 26, 24 on the first five DATQvault tests. DATQvault is great for conceptual questions. I knew everything I needed to know for this section 100% but I was not efficient enough with some of the more intensive calculation problems. Neither Chad's nor DATQvault is really sufficient practice for solving a variety of Gchem word problem calculations in the amount of time required but they will teach you all the background knowledge necessary to solve those problems. Again, practicing calculations is key and I am so pissed because my performance on this section is nowhere near an accurate representation of my Gchem knowledge. To give you an idea of how boss I am at Gchem, I answered 85/100 questions correctly in DAT Destroyer untimed on my first attempt but I am just slow as hell at calculations without consistent practice.
OC
What I used: Chad's Videos, DATQvault, DAT Destroyer
How they compare to the real thing:
Again, I don't know if Chad's is sufficient for this section. It is important to see reactions presented in a variety of contexts and Chad's quizzes did not really test knowledge of many of the most important reactions he presented; he taught them well, just did not test sufficiently in quizzes. DATQvault was awesome prep for this; harder than the real thing, but great, especially because you can do a bunch of problems just for one reaction type at a time (like just do 10 straight Wittig rxn problems, etc.). DATQvault scores: 17, 18, 19, 17, 19, 18. I was only scoring about 50% in DAT Destroyer (out of first 150 problems). Imo, DAT Destroyer is overkill for Ochem but is at an appropriate level of difficulty for Gchem.
Anyways, I think I will be taking this test again. I know I can do better and the actual studying process should only take me about 4 weeks now that I have all my notes ready to go. I think my biggest mistake was only spending about 10-14 days working problems outside of those from Chad's quizzes. My studying was too heavy on passive review and I did not emphasize practice problems nearly as much as I should have. Hopefully, I will also be able to sleep the night before the DAT next time.
