Crack the DAT vs. Real DAT difficult comparsion?

[archonsbk]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So, I bought the Crack the DAT and have been doing the practice problems on PAT (angle) and QR so far. I haven't taken Science and reading section because I want to be more prepared (Well, I guess I could take the reading anytime).

But anyway, my question is the difficult comparison of the real DAT to the crack the DAT questions. I set my PAT angle as 3 degree differences and it is pretty difficult and hole punching and cube counting seem difficult as well. It takes way more time than Kaplan practice ones...

The math section seems fine. I took 2 practice tests and got 29 and 30, but my worst part is biology, which I am worried the most.

Right now, I am studying for Chad's video for gen chem and o chem and once it is done, I am considering to buy DAT Destroyer and eventually try for DATqvault/Topscore/DAT bookcamp.

I appreciate any feedback!

 

[Mumford]

I thought CDP was pretty similar to the real DAT in terms of difficulty with some sections being slightly more difficult and some slightly easier. The reading passages from CDR were pretty spot on in terms of length and difficulty but there were too many tone questions and not enough detail ones. Nonetheless, I scored right at my Crack DAT average on the real exam so these tests can be used as a pretty good indication of how prepared you are.

Not sure about Crack DAT science and math though since I didn't use them. Hope this helps.

 

[Dr.PetesAFDDS]

Crack the DAT was very similar for PAT and reading (on my pat tests I was getting 18s to 21s, and got a 23 on the real thing). I felt that the math portion prepared me really well because it was harder (my scores on CD Math ranged from 19-21 and I got a 22). I should have used other resources for science besides crack the dat, Kaplan, and cliffs because my scores were not what I had hoped for. (Bio 18, GC 20, OC 20). Hope this helps!

 

[NMC2010]

CD is too easy for the PAT section in my opinion. Math is good, reading has too many tone questions & not enough, "the statement is right/wrong, the reason is right/wrong," or S&D questions. The sciences are absurd. You will never have questions as difficult as those provided by CD Science (bio, gc, oc).

 

[archonsbk]

I guess I will keep working on crack the DAT for the practice ones and then purchase other softwares like topscore and DATqvault and so on.

Thank you for the responses!!

 

[timbaland702]

I guess I will keep working on crack the DAT for the practice ones and then purchase other softwares like topscore and DATqvault and so on.

Thank you for the responses!!

I took the DAT recently and Crack Dat PAT is way easier than the actual test. Topcore was also easier than the actual thing. I recommend doing really hard ones. Possible achiever? I never used it, but if you want a good score on PAT, you need to use something harder than Crack and topscore

 

[ModifiedBass]

I took the DAT recently and Crack Dat PAT is way easier than the actual test. Topcore was also easier than the actual thing. I recommend doing really hard ones. Possible achiever? I never used it, but if you want a good score on PAT, you need to use something harder than Crack and topscore

I mean that statements pretty opinionated, wouldn't say it's true. I only used CDP and topscore for PAT and got a 25. You just have to learn from your mistakes on CDP and you should be able to use what you learn on it to work with some of the more difficult problems on the DAT. Crack the DAT is good for PAT and RC from what I've heard, I've also heard it is not good for the sciences. I used the destroyers for that, and the free tests from datqvault/bootcamp and they were very helpful as well.

 

[MrSummerlin]

I think the opposite of CDP. It is not enough by itself to compare to the DAT, especially for the PAT ad QR...they are both too easy on CrackDat. You absolutely need achiever (it is not overkill but neccessary for KH and TFE) to be prepared for the worst the DAT will throw at you for keyhole and TFE (there QR section is spot on as well). I only went through probability and some trig with Crack dat QR and it was way too simple. I believe math destroyer is a must for QR. My overall opinion is that CDP will leave a test taker completely stressed throughout the test because they WILL have harder keyhole, TFE and QR. CrackDat is too basic and easy. Which i think it is only a beginning material, if that.

 

[NMC2010]

I think the opposite of CDP. It is not enough by itself to compare to the DAT, especially for the PAT ad QR...they are both too easy on CrackDat. You absolutely need achiever (it is not overkill but neccessary for KH and TFE) to be prepared for the worst the DAT will throw at you for keyhole and TFE (there QR section is spot on as well). I only went through probability and some trig with Crack dat QR and it was way too simple. I believe math destroyer is a must for QR. My overall opinion is that CDP will leave a test taker completely stressed throughout the test because they WILL have harder keyhole, TFE and QR. CrackDat is too basic and easy. Which i think it is only a beginning material, if that.

I tend to agree with this. Perhaps some people catch on to differences more easily than I, so CDP was sufficient for PAT. However, using only CDP (I was scoring 20-23 consistently on practice tests), my first actual DAT score for the PAT was a 17. Keyholes were more difficult and tested proportions rather than shapes, TFE couldn't just use line counting like on CDP, and pattern folding wasn't normal looking shapes like in CDP (I actually found the weird shapes on the real DAT to be more helpful, as they were easier to match up). Get yourself DAT Bootcamp. I got it 3 days before my DAT (the PAT/RC sections). Was able to master keyholes that were on par with the real DAT and got a 21 on the actual test.

Crack DAT is a good starting point to get the fundamentals down, but temper those skills with more difficult programs like achiever and bootcamp.

 

[Luna724]

Personally, I benefited a lot from datqvault PAT and RC. CDP in my opinion was too easy for every section except the angle ranking (for a bad reason) but I truly picked up on my PAT after doing some qvault. I couldn't tell for the CDR since I never tried it but again, qvault RC was a very good practice for me. I averaged around 21s but on the real thing I ended up with a 25. So take your pick from plethora of resources out there and good luck to you!

 

[El Dentistador]

The actual DAT was easier in my opinion. I liked the PAT tests and trainers where I could just answer one type of question: hole punching, angles, and cube counting.

The science sections were often discouraging but I tried to take it with a grain of salt. I believe their questions covered several aspects of each topic spread over several tests. My strategy was to use the questions and explanations to create more flash cards. So instead of just learning the answer to one question, I learned the answer to 3 or 4 more.

I did come across some oddball questions, but I brushed those aside and happily estimated my score to be 3 to 4 points higher had I been given a reasonable questions. lol

Overall, I liked the CrackDat and CDP program. The only other resources I used were the Kaplan Bluebook, Kaplan Flash Cards, internet searches, and previous class material. It is good to have a good blend of test prep programs/books.