DAT Bootcamp exams, 2007 and 2009 DAT exams

[princecoup]

hi y'all - this is actually my first post/thread on this forum so hello!
my DAT is a little under 2 weeks from now and I finished taking the DAT bootcamp exams #1-4 and the 2007 DAT practice exam (will be taking the 2009 next week).

i know correlation is not causation, but i just wanted to gauge how accurate these scores may be in predicting the ballpark of where i would be scoring on the real dat. (i've read a lot that the 2007 dat was easier than the actual, so 2007 may not be a good predictor...?)

. . . . . . bio/gc/oc/pat/rc/qr/AA
BC #1: 25/25/21/22/19/20/22
BC #2: 25/24/20/22/19/24/22
BC #3: 26/26/21/22/20/24/23
BC #4: 23/26/20/20/25/22/23

2007 : 20/25/30/23/19/26/24

based on these numbers alone, would u guys say i would be able to score above a 21AA?
also, reading has never really been my forte, so i was wondering if u guys could lend some insight into how similar the DAT BC reading sections compare to the actual?

thanks!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CGT008]

You should def get above a 21. Beware for BC test 5 cause its harder than the others in my opinion. RC is very similar to the real thing. I hated the SnD methods and I sucked at reading so I read a book on a topic I liked and also read scientific American articles that BC linked. I went from 15's to 21's, but on the real exam I lost track of time. If you do like SnD, then it's a really good technique for most of the articles on the real thing

 

[princecoup]

You should def get above a 21. Beware for BC test 5 cause its harder than the others in my opinion. RC is very similar to the real thing. I hated the SnD methods and I sucked at reading so I read a book on a topic I liked and also read scientific American articles that BC linked. I went from 15's to 21's, but on the real exam I lost track of time. If you do like SnD, then it's a really good technique for most of the articles on the real thing

thanks! that's interesting too because i'm not a fan of the SnD method either - i actually read the passage in its entirety (w/ highlighting) and then usually answer the questions in order, but since timing could be an issue, would u recommend more SnD and less time reading on the actual DAT?

also were the RC passages on the actual test of similar length to that of BC?
thanks again

 

[FeralisExtremum]

also were the RC passages on the actual test of similar length to that of BC?
thanks again

From what I've seen RC passage length on the real thing can be highly variable and really unpredictable - be ready for anything.

 

[princecoup]

From what I've seen RC passage length on the real thing can be highly variable and really unpredictable - be ready for anything.

thanks for the tip!

 

[CGT008]

thanks! that's interesting too because i'm not a fan of the SnD method either - i actually read the passage in its entirety (w/ highlighting) and then usually answer the questions in order, but since timing could be an issue, would u recommend more SnD and less time reading on the actual DAT?

also were the RC passages on the actual test of similar length to that of BC?
thanks again

length can vary, but I would stick to reading entire passages. my "shortest" article ended up being the most dense/complex to read, so just keep practicing

 

[uhds]

Are you doing the 2007/2009 tests timed or untimed?

 

[princecoup]

Are you doing the 2007/2009 tests timed or untimed?

timed - thought it would make sense to do so to emulate testing conditions lol

 

[Auntymarkovnikov]

damn you're gonna score so high