DAT Bootcamp Full Test Scores... Am I "ready"?

[ZoeMarkson]

So the first time I took the individual tests on DAT Bootcamp, I ranged from "15-18", 19 if I am lucky for all the natural sciences. I learned from them and now, I have taken 3 full length practice tests and have gotten:

30 Bio/22 Gen chem/23 Orgo
26 Bio/21 Gen chem/22 Orgo
24 Bio/22 Genchem/22 Orgo

So I have learned from my mistakes, but do you think my scores are only good because I've seen the questions before? Are most estimated scores that people post (when they compare to their real DAT) the full length tests that they've done AFTER the individual tests? Or is this false hope? Haha

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JLT223]

Take the 2007 and 2009 exams and see how you do. Seeing the questions before certainly takes out some validity.

 

[Alikhan9]

Did you the remember the answers to the questions while you were answering them?

 

[ZoeMarkson]

Did you the remember the answers to the questions while you were answering them?

Some of them, but remembered how to work them out. I took the tests about a month ago.

 

[schmoob]

Definitely take 2007 and 2009.

 

[super frank]

I also took the tests twice but with two-three months in between. I also didn't review the tests my first time around. Remembering just a single question greatly skews your scores, especially once you reach the 21+ range. Like others have said, take the 2007/2009 and you'll have a good idea of where you stand.

 

[ZP3]

I also took the tests twice but with two-three months in between. I also didn't review the tests my first time around. Remembering just a single question greatly skews your scores, especially once you reach the 21+ range. Like others have said, take the 2007/2009 and you'll have a good idea of where you stand.[/QUOTE

Do you by chance remember what you scored on the 2007 and how that correlated?

 

[super frank]

@ZP3, my practice scores are in my breakdown. On the 2007 I scored a 26 BIO, 30 GC, 30 OC, 26 PAT and a 24 QR. The 2007 is not a good representation, it is way too simple. The BIO section seemed pretty outdated and the PAT was elementary at best.
In comparison to my actual test, the 2009 was more difficult in terms of QR and RC but easier in the sciences and PAT.

 

[MahiMahi]

Take the 2007 practice test, and if you do fine, you will be good to go.

 

[ZP3]

@ZP3, my practice scores are in my breakdown. On the 2007 I scored a 26 BIO, 30 GC, 30 OC, 26 PAT and a 24 QR. The 2007 is not a good representation, it is way too simple. The BIO section seemed pretty outdated and the PAT was elementary at best.
In comparison to my actual test, the 2009 was more difficult in terms of QR and RC but easier in the sciences and PAT.

In terms of the sciences, how much easier on the 2009 are we talking? I got 21 bio, 23 gchem, 19 ochem. Then, reading 22 and PAT 21. Didn't do the QR; doing it on its own.

 

[ZoeMarkson]

@ZP3, my practice scores are in my breakdown. On the 2007 I scored a 26 BIO, 30 GC, 30 OC, 26 PAT and a 24 QR. The 2007 is not a good representation, it is way too simple. The BIO section seemed pretty outdated and the PAT was elementary at best.
In comparison to my actual test, the 2009 was more difficult in terms of QR and RC but easier in the sciences and PAT.

Okay, yeah I just took the 2007 and got 5 wrong on bio, 5 wrong on gen chem, and 1 wrong on orgo...so it's not that accurate, huh?

 

[schmoob]

Take 2009 and see for yourself. You'll be able to gauge better.