princecoup

2+ Year Member
Jul 18, 2015
38
53
Status
  1. Dental Student
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? :writer:
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!!
 
May 18, 2017
64
105
Status
  1. Pre-Dental
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: princecoup

princecoup

2+ Year Member
Jul 18, 2015
38
53
Status
  1. Dental Student
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 :)
 
About the Ads
May 18, 2017
64
105
Status
  1. Pre-Dental
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: princecoup
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads