Last edited:
CDP vs Real PAT
- Thread starter joemario
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 516
- Reaction score
- 21
You will get different answers from different people. Some people who never got above a 20 on CDP and got 22+ on real thing and others who were averaging 22+ on CDP and got a 19 on the real thing.
I personally think CDP is very good. Angles are harder on CDP, TFE is easier, everything else is pretty accurate.
I averaged about ~23 on all 10 of my tests and made a 25 twice and only got a 21 on the real thing.
I personally think CDP is very good. Angles are harder on CDP, TFE is easier, everything else is pretty accurate.
I averaged about ~23 on all 10 of my tests and made a 25 twice and only got a 21 on the real thing.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 1
IMO crack the pat is THE BEST practice for the real DAT. I think that crack the pat is the closest you will ever get to being like the real DAT... plus you get TONS of practice questions.. and PAT is ALL about practice... I got 27-29 on the crack and 29 on the real thing
and No, I don't think CD sciences is worth it.... i got it originally and it didn't do didilly for me
and No, I don't think CD sciences is worth it.... i got it originally and it didn't do didilly for me
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,937
- Reaction score
- 990
DATqVault is pretty legit, too. It's good practice for TFE, keyhole, and pattern folding... Granted, I can't make a comparison to the real DAT, as I haven't yet taken mine. For reference, I scored 20/20/22/20/22/22/23 on the first 7 CDPAT and 20/20/20 on DATqVault so far.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 1
CDP is pretty accurate in terms of difficulty except for keyholes and pattern folding (too easy). For those two sections, Achiever was more than helpful. I never purchased CDS but have heard its garbage...
- Joined
- May 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 1,308
My real DAT was soooooooo much harder than CDP. Seriously.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 35
I think the real question we need to ask is when did the above posters take their DAT's? If it was over six-eight months ago then honestly there feedback at this point in time is moot. The PAT section of the DAT has gotten much harder in the last year or so and as Glimmer just said it is MUCH MUCH harder than Crack PAT.
I took my exam on January 19th, 2013 and was scoring avg. 23's on Crack PAT. My actual exam was much harder and I would say comparable in difficulty to DAT Achiever's PAT section, maybe a tiny bit easier. I still (not really sure how) managed to score a 21 on my PAT section of the exam, but DO NOT go in to the exam thinking it will be like Crack, because it was not. Get Achiever to make sure you are fully prepared for the PAT section.
On the other hand maybe I just had a very hard PAT section on my particular exam.......
I'd still recommend DAT Achiever though, just to make sure you cover all of your bases.
I took my exam on January 19th, 2013 and was scoring avg. 23's on Crack PAT. My actual exam was much harder and I would say comparable in difficulty to DAT Achiever's PAT section, maybe a tiny bit easier. I still (not really sure how) managed to score a 21 on my PAT section of the exam, but DO NOT go in to the exam thinking it will be like Crack, because it was not. Get Achiever to make sure you are fully prepared for the PAT section.
On the other hand maybe I just had a very hard PAT section on my particular exam.......
I'd still recommend DAT Achiever though, just to make sure you cover all of your bases.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 516
- Reaction score
- 21
I took the DAT this summer and I to averaged a 23 on my CDP tests and got a 21 on the real thing. Obviously the real thing turned out to be a little harder but only in certain sections.
Keyholes and TFE were harder (comparable to achiever). Angles were easier, and the rest were the same. The only thing I noticed a little harder in the others was holepunching were sometimes they would do 1\3 folds but its still pretty basic when using grids.
and honestly you have no idea if the PAT got harder in the last 6 months. You are just assuming that because it seemed harder than YOU expected.
Keyholes and TFE were harder (comparable to achiever). Angles were easier, and the rest were the same. The only thing I noticed a little harder in the others was holepunching were sometimes they would do 1\3 folds but its still pretty basic when using grids.
and honestly you have no idea if the PAT got harder in the last 6 months. You are just assuming that because it seemed harder than YOU expected.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 35
Dgeorg6 you are very correct, I did just assume that the PAT has gotten harder but I have no proof at all that it actually has . The reason I said that was most likely that the PAT section seemed harder than I expected compared to my practice as well as what most break downs post about their experiences with the actual PAT section.
I would also agree with your assessment that Keyhole and TFE was harder than Crack, Hole punch, angles, and cubes were about the same. But I will say that Pattern Folding was much harder on my exam than it was on crack. On crack I felt like it was one of the easiest sections, but on the actual exam the problems seemed much more similar to the pattern folding problems seen in DAT Achiever.
Sorry for the extreme conclusion I jumped to, must have just gotten a little worked up when thinking about how hard my PAT section was.
I would also agree with your assessment that Keyhole and TFE was harder than Crack, Hole punch, angles, and cubes were about the same. But I will say that Pattern Folding was much harder on my exam than it was on crack. On crack I felt like it was one of the easiest sections, but on the actual exam the problems seemed much more similar to the pattern folding problems seen in DAT Achiever.
Sorry for the extreme conclusion I jumped to, must have just gotten a little worked up when thinking about how hard my PAT section was.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 142
I was getting I think around 22's on CDP and I got a 24 on the actual DAT. What did throw me off was the high quality images of CDP. Before you take the actual DAT, take some practice tests like achiever or something. The crappy image quality on the actual DAT made things a bit harder.
