Hey guys,
This is my first ever post on SDN so be gentle to me.
I'm a 4th year biology student at UCLA with a GPA of 3.67 and a similar math/science GPA (could be lower or higher- too lazy to calculate at the moment).
I just took my DAT this afternoon (4:00pm) and here are my scores:
PA: 21
QR: 21
RC: 24
Bio: 20 🙁
GC: 22
OC: 23
TS: 21
AA: 22
Study Materials
- Cracking the DAT (The Princeton Review)
- Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition
- Crack the DAT software
- Chad's Videos
- 1 month of DAT Bootcamp
Study schedule: ~17 weeks of studying here and there.
UCLA has a 10 week quarter system so I constantly had midterms and finals (and a job) so finding a consistent study schedule was very hard for me. Imagine having midterm 1 Monday of week 4 and midterm 2 Wednesday of Week 7. That's only three weeks between midterm 1 and midterm 2- and that's only for one class! At one point, I stopped studying for the DAT for about 2.5 weeks to focus on my midterms. Anyways, on average, I would say I studied 3.5 hours on weekdays and 6 hours on weekends.
Biology: 20
This was my lowest score and I got to say it's pretty disappointing considering I'm a bio major. I attribute this to the fact that I studied slowly over 17 weeks. I started forgetting things that I studied at the beginning since I started studying bio first and never really refreshed myself as test day came. I recommend saving bio for last in your studies so the info will remain fresh in your head and not decay over time.
If you're aiming for a 19 on the DAT, Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition is sufficient. Getting a 20 or higher in my opinion requires a little more detail- this is where Cracking the DAT comes along. It explains bio concepts in greater detail necessary to get above a 20. If you have time, I highly recommend you read the Bio section of Cracking the DAT at least once, using Cliff's to review general concepts. If anything, at least read Cracking the DAT on the sections you are weak on- mine was physiology. I also used google (thank you McGraw hill animations!) on concepts I didn't understand.
People always say to write down the questions you got wrong, but I did not do this since bio is so broad. Instead, I would write down the section and category I got wrong. For example, I got a question wrong on the electron transport chain, I would write: Physiology--> Respiration--> Oxidative Phosphorylation. This way, I would not memorize specific questions but really looked at questions I got wrong. I believe that if you know a section well enough, you shouldn't get the question wrong.
The difficulty of the real DAT was in between Crack the DAT software and Bootcamp. I know people say CTD can be a bit random, but that prepares you for the randomness of the real DAT. I think if you are consistently getting above a 20 on CTD and BC, the worst you can do on the real DAT is a 19. Not much to say other than to cram everything on your head, focusing on physiology and cell biology. You can totally get away not knowing anything about plant anatomy or cladistics- I did not study plant biology or cladistics at all. I only had one question on cladistics and it was quite simple and no question on plants in my real DAT. CTD and BC reflect this as well- there are hardly any plant physio or cladistics questions.
G-Chem
I used Chad's videos for this and I got to say, he is the best. Seriously, put away all of your old 700 pg G-chem and O-chem text books and just buy his subscription. It's a life saver. The last time I had general chemistry was first year so I pretty much had to learn G-chem all over again. I watched all of his videos, took notes, and did 10 questions from each quiz. After finishing Chad's G-chem, my friend let me borrow his DAT Destroyer and I started doing about 50 questions of G-chem before stopping due to depression. DAT DESTROYER IS FREAKIN HARD. I was seriously getting sad while doing it and I decided it wasn't worth my time since I thought it was too hard compared to the real thing. This turned out to be a good and bad thing in my opinion since G-chem on the real DAT is easier than CTD and BC. If you're getting above 20's on CTD and BC, you will definitely get above a 20 on the real thing. If you're aiming for a killer score, say above 24, Destroyer will probably help since it goes in more detail. I see countless posts of people going through Destroyer multiple times and I don't know how they do it. I'm not saying you shouldn't do the Destroyer- if you can do it then GREAT!!- it just wasn't for me. Anyways, all you really need for the G-chem section is CTD and BC. Do about 3 CTD G-chem, see where you're at, and jump to BC once your DAT approaches. Don't worry too much about calculations on CTD G-chem since most of the calculation questions are set up for you on the real DAT- like BC.
O-Chem: 23
The last time I took this class was winter quarter of second year so again, I had to teach myself O-chem. Chad's videos was a lifesaver. Same story for Destroyer as G-chem: I did about 50 Destroyer O-chem problems before putting it down. I just did 3 CTD and 4 BC O-chem exams. Something that helped was the O-Chem outlines of on Chad's website. I guess it's similar to Destroyer's roadmap. I think if you just do BC, you are set for the real DAT. Just mix in some CTD to spice things up a little since they always have some random-a** reaction that you'll miss. This will motivate you to study and review more, which is always a good thing in O-chem in my opinion. Although people think BC is superior to CTD (and I personally agree), I think its nice to have questions coming from a different source and different style to prepare you for anything that can pop up.
Some extra tidbits is that the real DAT does not have IUPAC naming anywhere near as hard as CTD. Even BC is a little harder than the real thing. If you are freaking out over IUPAC naming, don't worry too much, it's really straight forward and the hardest it will get is about BC level.
PA: 21
I'll give you my study strategy and give you a breakdown of how each section compared to CTP and BC. I started studying PA last and as a result I didn't really know how to do TFE by the time test day came. My TFE understanding was mediocre at best- I could (probably) make out the 3D structure on simple TFE questions and barely (if at all) make out the 3D structure on medium TFE questions. The best I could do was count lines, narrow it down to 2/4 or 3/4 and mark my best guess. Of course, all the talk about line counting not working anymore is true for the most part- I would know how to do TFE legitly if you can. How did I get a 21 you ask? Well, I just got good at every other section. I'll outline the order in which I studied the PAT section and later outline the order in which I approached my real exam:
Hole Punching:
This is by far (next to cube counting) the easiest part in the exam. I did all of the CTP hole punching questions and by the end, I was getting 15/15 on HP. Then I moved up to BC and things got a little more complicated- BC introduces the type of fold where it folds over 2.5 squares out of 4 and I started missing some, but after figuring that out, I was back to 15/15. The best strategy is making a grid and working backwards until you completely unfold the whole structure. I highly recommend you start your PAT studies with this because you can master it in ~2-3 days and it will give you motivation and confidence to continue your PAT studies. The real DAT was in between the difficulty of CTP and BC, but perhaps more so toward CTP. It's not too hard on the real DAT so don't stress out too much over it.
Cube Counting:
This one I got good at in one day and was able to get 15/15 on both CTP and BC. The best strategy for this is to make a table and tally the cubes that have X number of sides facing it. For this one, start with CTP and work your way to BC. CTP cubes aren't hard in my opinion- no tricky structures or hidden cubes- just lots of cubes. I remember doing a cube counting question that had 42 cubes. Seriously. 42 cubes. I think BC cubes are pretty much spot on in terms of the real thing. But, if you want to own cube counting, do about 4 CTP cube counting sections and count cubes until you're annoyed at the software. Like I said, CTP doesn't really test you on hidden or tricky cube structures but more on keeping track of your hidden cubes since there's so many of them. This will save time on the real test because you won't be recounting your cubes - if you can keep track of 35+ cubes, 17-20 cubes will be a breeze. The average number of cubes I had for my exam was about 17, and only one of them had any sort of tricky hidden cube thing and even then, it was really easy. Again, start out with 3-4 CTP, then go to BC. By that point, you'll laugh at how easy BC cube counting is.
Angles:
To be honest, I didn't really study this thing too seriously. I remember doing my first angle ranking CTP and getting a 10/15. Then 7/15. Then 9/15, 12/15, and 8/15 and so on. It was so random. I told myself "ahhh f**k it, I'll never get better at this so why even try at this point." The best way to do this section is to look at the extremes- smallest or largest angle- and immediately eliminate them. Then from there, you can eliminate what's left. I mainly used the rapid eye technique and used the laptop method for maybe one or two obtuse angle questions. I never used the hill method- too hard to set up 😛. If I couldn't tell which angles were bigger or smaller, I looked down at the "O" key on on my keyboard for 2 seconds to reset, and looked at the monitor again, using the rapid eye technique. I definitely realized that obtuse angles were my weakness (acute and right angles were fine for me) and I just went on BC and used their generator, answering only obtuse angle questions. I highly recommend you do this since you'll probably be good at 2/3 types of angles, but struggle with the other type.
I always hear people saying angle ranking was near impossible in their exam, but I thought mine was easy-medium difficulty compared to the average CDP and BC angle. My first 2 or 3 angle ranking questions were hard, but as I progressed through the angle ranking section it got easier- the PAT section is structured easy to hard so I thought that was odd. I think the best way to study for this section is to use CTP or BC since both represents the real deal quite well. I highly recommend studying for this section at the beginning of your DAT studying and just doing 5 problems a day here and there.
Keyholes:
I studied for this one using CTP and BC. I did all CTP first and by the time I was done with it, I was getting 13-15/15. Then I moved to BC and HOLY HELL it is hard!! It tests you a lot on proportions and and I was getting 6-7/15 on BC keyholes. BC keyholes was kind of like Destroyer to me- they were so hard that I was getting depressed and stopped doing them for a week. Then I realized that I didn't know how to do TFE and forced myself to do BC keyholes. To be honest, I just kind of skimmed BC keyholes and hoped that the real PAT keyholes were like CTP. The real test ended up being straight smack dab in the middle of CTP and BC. Seriously. It didn't ask much questions about proportions like BC does (if it did, it was easy to eliminate) but it wasn't straight out "will this object fit into the hole" like CTP either. I guess the only way to find out what I'm talking about is to do the 2007 and 2009 practice DAT. Bottom line is that you should be getting at least 15/15 on CTP since it's so easy and at least do 2 BC keyholes just to see how hard keyholes can get. If you're getting owned by the BC keyhole section, don't stress out too much since the real exam is noticeably easier, but you should be getting perfect on CTP. I think if you can own BC keyholes, you should own the real DAT keyhole easily. I didn't take the time to own BC keyholes because I'm a little wussy 🙁
Pattern Folding:
I studied this one using mainly CDP. I did all 10 pattern folding sections and by the time I was done, averaged around 13-14/15. My scores for BC was averaging around 12/15 so BC is a little harder. I would say if CTP this is your only resource for the pattern folding section, you're fine. What I did was I always started with C and checked to see if C was right. If I did think it was right, I would check it again to be sure and mark that as my answer. I didn't eliminate every single answer to save time and personally, I think you shouldn't either. Only on very hard questions where I couldn't fold the object in my head did I eliminate the wrong answer rather than hunt for the right one.
If C wasn't the right answer, I worked my way to D, then A, then B. For some reason, this method worked best for me rather than going A --> B --> C --> D. The best strategy for unshaded structures was to find a "landmark" structure on the unfolded pattern and see if it appears in the answer choices. For questions with shading, I tried to find a fixed shape and work from there, folding and seeing if all the other patterns around it match. Use the 2D shape to your advantage- you don't really need to fold the object, but rather understand how the 2D face would change if you rotate it. For example, if I have a 2D square and I shade half of it diagonally, how would it look it I rotate it 90 degrees clockwise? Stuff like this I feel is the foundation for doing well on pattern folding.
Some quick notes: my DAT did not have any dice folding questions, but it did 1 shaded cube questions (I always sucked at those). Also, CTP is way too easy on questions that asked you to fold things without shading- all you had to do was find one landmark and compare it to the other. I think BC pattern folding was much more representative for unshaded pattern folding: it forced you to look for landmarks and do a little more with it. As a result, I recommend you do both BC and CTP. Having both for variety never hurts.
TFE:
I can't really say much about this since I still don't know how to do this. I used CTP and BC for this section. CDP is cool since there's so many different type of questions but the problem is that most of them can be solved by line counting. I line line counted my way to victory in CTP but when I transitioned to BC, I was got owned. I tried my hardest to learn it legitly, but line counting already took over my soul and I couldn't go back- it was just too damn convenient. I recommend you learn this section correctly the first time so you won't be tempted to line count. Actually, if you're reading this, don't even look at the tutorial on how to line count until you can start forming 3D objects in your head.
On the real DAT, I started off by picking C for the last 6 questions since I knew I wasn't going to get it right no matter how hard I tried. Then, I began line counting and making educated guesses for numbers 1-9. I guess the real DAT was similar to BC in that it can't be line counted but I honestly thought the structures and shapes were like CDP. Then again, I don't know how to do TFE and I could be talking out of my a**, but that's just how I feel. Just imagine CDP type questions if the answer choices they gave you couldn't be eliminated through line counting.
A quick note on how bad I was a TFE: I was very close to just going to the PAT section and picking all C for the TFE section so I could focus on getting other questions right, but I didn't. I tried on numbers 1-9 on TFE and I'm sure that paid off in getting me a few questions right.
On the real exam, I started with 1) hole punching 2) cube counting 3) keyhole 4) angle ranking 5) pattern folding 6) TFE.
I marked some questions I didn't know how to do and went back to them when I had time.
RC: 24
DO NOT FEAR. RC on the real DAT was MUCH easier than any RC practice test I've taken. To give you perspective, I took 2 CTD RC and 2 BC RC and I scored a 20 on all of them. It's not that the real DAT has easier questions, but that the prompts they gave you were much easier to read. It was also a plus that my RC test did not have any "the first statement is true, the second is false, etc." type questions.
My strategy for this section was to look at the first 3 questions and start reading to about paragraph 8/14. By then, I could most likely answer the first three questions and had a good understanding of the tone and argument that the reader was putting forth. Then, I would read the next 2 paragraphs and skim the last 4. On the real DAT (at least on my exam), they mostly asked me questions on the beginning and middle portions of the passage and only asked a few questions for the last 4 paragraphs. The questions concerning the last few paragraphs can most definitely be skimmed and I feel this was the best strategy for me. I did not make any notes roadmaps on my scratch paper.
QR: 21
This one was kind of a disappointment for me since I was aiming for a 22 or higher and ended up getting a 21. I was consistently getting 23s on CTD and I was averaging 20 on BC so I guess it balanced out. My strategy was to do the questions in knew how to do right away and mark anything that was a word question or took longer than 20 seconds to set up. Those of you who are doing QR on CTD might be wondering, do they seriously have free questions like "how many centimeters are in 3 yards?" Yes. They most certainly do. There was a surprising amount of free questions on the QR section, which is why I recommend doing all of the easy ones first. Also, I did not memorize any trig identities other than the most basic ones: unit circle, cos^2 + sin^2 = 1, and SOH-CAH-TOA. I think if you skip trig identities, you'll be fine since I only had one question that required any knowledge of trig identities and even then it was quite basic. I also skipped ellipses because maybe one out of all of my practice QR exams had it and I thought it wasn't worth my time.
I did about 4 CTD QR and eventually worked my way up to BC. BC is more difficult than CTD not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of how long it takes to solve the question. You will find yourself constantly running out of time when using BC but that's fine- it's expected. BC states that their QR section is purposely more difficult to prepare you for the real DAT, but I find that doing CTD and BC was my key to success.
The real DAT ended up being in between CTD and BC in terms of difficultly.
Concluding statements:
Some people might read my breakdown and get mad at me for skipping some PAT sections (TFE), math (trig identities), and bio concepts (plant physio, cladistics) but I'm just giving you info on how I studied. Of course, if you have the skin and time for Destroyer, by all means do it,- I'm sure it will boost your DAT score- but Destroyer is not for everyone and it's certainly not the end all be all. I'm just giving you inside tips if you're overwhelmed with studying and want to see what "things" you can get away with and still do reasonably well.
Here's my thoughts on my study materials:
- Cracking the DAT (The Princeton Review): only used for bio section. I think that along makes it worth the price.
- Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition: very good for general idea for bio. You probably shouldn't use this as your main source of bio knowledge though.
- Crack the DAT software: People say it's outdated and doesn't represent the actual DAT anymore and in some ways its true: sciences are a little too random, PAT is too easy (with exception of cube counting), RC is too hard, QR is a little too easy. But I like CTD because it gives variety. I could do BC all day but CTD asks its questions differently and I don't know... I just like the software. If you're turned off by the price of the product and don't feel like getting it, don't worry too much since you always have BC, which I think is an overall better product.
- Chad's Videos: must get product. Will teach you all you 95% of what you need to know for G-chem and O-chem. The last 5% comes from practice tests. His outlines are great as well.
- 1 month of DAT Bootcamp: this is also a must get. What I like about this product is that it's very consistent: every section is always a bit harder than the real deal, providing you with a good feel for how the actual test is going to be. The only negative I can give it is that you can't take the whole science section- you have to take it one section at a time. For instance, you'll take bio, then it will show your score, then you'll go back to the homepage and take G-chem and it will show your score and so on. I wish BC would allow me to take the whole DAT at a time (one advantage that CTD has over BC) but it doesn't. One thing to note is that the PAT section is noticeably more difficult than the real test. If you master the PAT section on BC, I can't imagine you getting anything lower than a 23 on the real test.
PS: I was not able to write anything during the tutorial so I used the extra 5 minutes I had in the SNS to set up my PAT section. Also, you don't have a review button until you go through all questions. In other words, I would mash "next" on my computer until I went through all of the questions and it sent me to a review screen and a review button popped on the bottom right of my monitor.
Well, hopefully this breakdown is useful since this is my first time posting on SDN. I feel like my post it too long and I kind of rambled a bit but meh. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a post and I'll try to get back to it.
Brian Vu
This is my first ever post on SDN so be gentle to me.
I'm a 4th year biology student at UCLA with a GPA of 3.67 and a similar math/science GPA (could be lower or higher- too lazy to calculate at the moment).
I just took my DAT this afternoon (4:00pm) and here are my scores:
PA: 21
QR: 21
RC: 24
Bio: 20 🙁
GC: 22
OC: 23
TS: 21
AA: 22
Study Materials
- Cracking the DAT (The Princeton Review)
- Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition
- Crack the DAT software
- Chad's Videos
- 1 month of DAT Bootcamp
Study schedule: ~17 weeks of studying here and there.
UCLA has a 10 week quarter system so I constantly had midterms and finals (and a job) so finding a consistent study schedule was very hard for me. Imagine having midterm 1 Monday of week 4 and midterm 2 Wednesday of Week 7. That's only three weeks between midterm 1 and midterm 2- and that's only for one class! At one point, I stopped studying for the DAT for about 2.5 weeks to focus on my midterms. Anyways, on average, I would say I studied 3.5 hours on weekdays and 6 hours on weekends.
Biology: 20
This was my lowest score and I got to say it's pretty disappointing considering I'm a bio major. I attribute this to the fact that I studied slowly over 17 weeks. I started forgetting things that I studied at the beginning since I started studying bio first and never really refreshed myself as test day came. I recommend saving bio for last in your studies so the info will remain fresh in your head and not decay over time.
If you're aiming for a 19 on the DAT, Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition is sufficient. Getting a 20 or higher in my opinion requires a little more detail- this is where Cracking the DAT comes along. It explains bio concepts in greater detail necessary to get above a 20. If you have time, I highly recommend you read the Bio section of Cracking the DAT at least once, using Cliff's to review general concepts. If anything, at least read Cracking the DAT on the sections you are weak on- mine was physiology. I also used google (thank you McGraw hill animations!) on concepts I didn't understand.
People always say to write down the questions you got wrong, but I did not do this since bio is so broad. Instead, I would write down the section and category I got wrong. For example, I got a question wrong on the electron transport chain, I would write: Physiology--> Respiration--> Oxidative Phosphorylation. This way, I would not memorize specific questions but really looked at questions I got wrong. I believe that if you know a section well enough, you shouldn't get the question wrong.
The difficulty of the real DAT was in between Crack the DAT software and Bootcamp. I know people say CTD can be a bit random, but that prepares you for the randomness of the real DAT. I think if you are consistently getting above a 20 on CTD and BC, the worst you can do on the real DAT is a 19. Not much to say other than to cram everything on your head, focusing on physiology and cell biology. You can totally get away not knowing anything about plant anatomy or cladistics- I did not study plant biology or cladistics at all. I only had one question on cladistics and it was quite simple and no question on plants in my real DAT. CTD and BC reflect this as well- there are hardly any plant physio or cladistics questions.
G-Chem
I used Chad's videos for this and I got to say, he is the best. Seriously, put away all of your old 700 pg G-chem and O-chem text books and just buy his subscription. It's a life saver. The last time I had general chemistry was first year so I pretty much had to learn G-chem all over again. I watched all of his videos, took notes, and did 10 questions from each quiz. After finishing Chad's G-chem, my friend let me borrow his DAT Destroyer and I started doing about 50 questions of G-chem before stopping due to depression. DAT DESTROYER IS FREAKIN HARD. I was seriously getting sad while doing it and I decided it wasn't worth my time since I thought it was too hard compared to the real thing. This turned out to be a good and bad thing in my opinion since G-chem on the real DAT is easier than CTD and BC. If you're getting above 20's on CTD and BC, you will definitely get above a 20 on the real thing. If you're aiming for a killer score, say above 24, Destroyer will probably help since it goes in more detail. I see countless posts of people going through Destroyer multiple times and I don't know how they do it. I'm not saying you shouldn't do the Destroyer- if you can do it then GREAT!!- it just wasn't for me. Anyways, all you really need for the G-chem section is CTD and BC. Do about 3 CTD G-chem, see where you're at, and jump to BC once your DAT approaches. Don't worry too much about calculations on CTD G-chem since most of the calculation questions are set up for you on the real DAT- like BC.
O-Chem: 23
The last time I took this class was winter quarter of second year so again, I had to teach myself O-chem. Chad's videos was a lifesaver. Same story for Destroyer as G-chem: I did about 50 Destroyer O-chem problems before putting it down. I just did 3 CTD and 4 BC O-chem exams. Something that helped was the O-Chem outlines of on Chad's website. I guess it's similar to Destroyer's roadmap. I think if you just do BC, you are set for the real DAT. Just mix in some CTD to spice things up a little since they always have some random-a** reaction that you'll miss. This will motivate you to study and review more, which is always a good thing in O-chem in my opinion. Although people think BC is superior to CTD (and I personally agree), I think its nice to have questions coming from a different source and different style to prepare you for anything that can pop up.
Some extra tidbits is that the real DAT does not have IUPAC naming anywhere near as hard as CTD. Even BC is a little harder than the real thing. If you are freaking out over IUPAC naming, don't worry too much, it's really straight forward and the hardest it will get is about BC level.
PA: 21
I'll give you my study strategy and give you a breakdown of how each section compared to CTP and BC. I started studying PA last and as a result I didn't really know how to do TFE by the time test day came. My TFE understanding was mediocre at best- I could (probably) make out the 3D structure on simple TFE questions and barely (if at all) make out the 3D structure on medium TFE questions. The best I could do was count lines, narrow it down to 2/4 or 3/4 and mark my best guess. Of course, all the talk about line counting not working anymore is true for the most part- I would know how to do TFE legitly if you can. How did I get a 21 you ask? Well, I just got good at every other section. I'll outline the order in which I studied the PAT section and later outline the order in which I approached my real exam:
Hole Punching:
This is by far (next to cube counting) the easiest part in the exam. I did all of the CTP hole punching questions and by the end, I was getting 15/15 on HP. Then I moved up to BC and things got a little more complicated- BC introduces the type of fold where it folds over 2.5 squares out of 4 and I started missing some, but after figuring that out, I was back to 15/15. The best strategy is making a grid and working backwards until you completely unfold the whole structure. I highly recommend you start your PAT studies with this because you can master it in ~2-3 days and it will give you motivation and confidence to continue your PAT studies. The real DAT was in between the difficulty of CTP and BC, but perhaps more so toward CTP. It's not too hard on the real DAT so don't stress out too much over it.
Cube Counting:
This one I got good at in one day and was able to get 15/15 on both CTP and BC. The best strategy for this is to make a table and tally the cubes that have X number of sides facing it. For this one, start with CTP and work your way to BC. CTP cubes aren't hard in my opinion- no tricky structures or hidden cubes- just lots of cubes. I remember doing a cube counting question that had 42 cubes. Seriously. 42 cubes. I think BC cubes are pretty much spot on in terms of the real thing. But, if you want to own cube counting, do about 4 CTP cube counting sections and count cubes until you're annoyed at the software. Like I said, CTP doesn't really test you on hidden or tricky cube structures but more on keeping track of your hidden cubes since there's so many of them. This will save time on the real test because you won't be recounting your cubes - if you can keep track of 35+ cubes, 17-20 cubes will be a breeze. The average number of cubes I had for my exam was about 17, and only one of them had any sort of tricky hidden cube thing and even then, it was really easy. Again, start out with 3-4 CTP, then go to BC. By that point, you'll laugh at how easy BC cube counting is.
Angles:
To be honest, I didn't really study this thing too seriously. I remember doing my first angle ranking CTP and getting a 10/15. Then 7/15. Then 9/15, 12/15, and 8/15 and so on. It was so random. I told myself "ahhh f**k it, I'll never get better at this so why even try at this point." The best way to do this section is to look at the extremes- smallest or largest angle- and immediately eliminate them. Then from there, you can eliminate what's left. I mainly used the rapid eye technique and used the laptop method for maybe one or two obtuse angle questions. I never used the hill method- too hard to set up 😛. If I couldn't tell which angles were bigger or smaller, I looked down at the "O" key on on my keyboard for 2 seconds to reset, and looked at the monitor again, using the rapid eye technique. I definitely realized that obtuse angles were my weakness (acute and right angles were fine for me) and I just went on BC and used their generator, answering only obtuse angle questions. I highly recommend you do this since you'll probably be good at 2/3 types of angles, but struggle with the other type.
I always hear people saying angle ranking was near impossible in their exam, but I thought mine was easy-medium difficulty compared to the average CDP and BC angle. My first 2 or 3 angle ranking questions were hard, but as I progressed through the angle ranking section it got easier- the PAT section is structured easy to hard so I thought that was odd. I think the best way to study for this section is to use CTP or BC since both represents the real deal quite well. I highly recommend studying for this section at the beginning of your DAT studying and just doing 5 problems a day here and there.
Keyholes:
I studied for this one using CTP and BC. I did all CTP first and by the time I was done with it, I was getting 13-15/15. Then I moved to BC and HOLY HELL it is hard!! It tests you a lot on proportions and and I was getting 6-7/15 on BC keyholes. BC keyholes was kind of like Destroyer to me- they were so hard that I was getting depressed and stopped doing them for a week. Then I realized that I didn't know how to do TFE and forced myself to do BC keyholes. To be honest, I just kind of skimmed BC keyholes and hoped that the real PAT keyholes were like CTP. The real test ended up being straight smack dab in the middle of CTP and BC. Seriously. It didn't ask much questions about proportions like BC does (if it did, it was easy to eliminate) but it wasn't straight out "will this object fit into the hole" like CTP either. I guess the only way to find out what I'm talking about is to do the 2007 and 2009 practice DAT. Bottom line is that you should be getting at least 15/15 on CTP since it's so easy and at least do 2 BC keyholes just to see how hard keyholes can get. If you're getting owned by the BC keyhole section, don't stress out too much since the real exam is noticeably easier, but you should be getting perfect on CTP. I think if you can own BC keyholes, you should own the real DAT keyhole easily. I didn't take the time to own BC keyholes because I'm a little wussy 🙁
Pattern Folding:
I studied this one using mainly CDP. I did all 10 pattern folding sections and by the time I was done, averaged around 13-14/15. My scores for BC was averaging around 12/15 so BC is a little harder. I would say if CTP this is your only resource for the pattern folding section, you're fine. What I did was I always started with C and checked to see if C was right. If I did think it was right, I would check it again to be sure and mark that as my answer. I didn't eliminate every single answer to save time and personally, I think you shouldn't either. Only on very hard questions where I couldn't fold the object in my head did I eliminate the wrong answer rather than hunt for the right one.
If C wasn't the right answer, I worked my way to D, then A, then B. For some reason, this method worked best for me rather than going A --> B --> C --> D. The best strategy for unshaded structures was to find a "landmark" structure on the unfolded pattern and see if it appears in the answer choices. For questions with shading, I tried to find a fixed shape and work from there, folding and seeing if all the other patterns around it match. Use the 2D shape to your advantage- you don't really need to fold the object, but rather understand how the 2D face would change if you rotate it. For example, if I have a 2D square and I shade half of it diagonally, how would it look it I rotate it 90 degrees clockwise? Stuff like this I feel is the foundation for doing well on pattern folding.
Some quick notes: my DAT did not have any dice folding questions, but it did 1 shaded cube questions (I always sucked at those). Also, CTP is way too easy on questions that asked you to fold things without shading- all you had to do was find one landmark and compare it to the other. I think BC pattern folding was much more representative for unshaded pattern folding: it forced you to look for landmarks and do a little more with it. As a result, I recommend you do both BC and CTP. Having both for variety never hurts.
TFE:
I can't really say much about this since I still don't know how to do this. I used CTP and BC for this section. CDP is cool since there's so many different type of questions but the problem is that most of them can be solved by line counting. I line line counted my way to victory in CTP but when I transitioned to BC, I was got owned. I tried my hardest to learn it legitly, but line counting already took over my soul and I couldn't go back- it was just too damn convenient. I recommend you learn this section correctly the first time so you won't be tempted to line count. Actually, if you're reading this, don't even look at the tutorial on how to line count until you can start forming 3D objects in your head.
On the real DAT, I started off by picking C for the last 6 questions since I knew I wasn't going to get it right no matter how hard I tried. Then, I began line counting and making educated guesses for numbers 1-9. I guess the real DAT was similar to BC in that it can't be line counted but I honestly thought the structures and shapes were like CDP. Then again, I don't know how to do TFE and I could be talking out of my a**, but that's just how I feel. Just imagine CDP type questions if the answer choices they gave you couldn't be eliminated through line counting.
A quick note on how bad I was a TFE: I was very close to just going to the PAT section and picking all C for the TFE section so I could focus on getting other questions right, but I didn't. I tried on numbers 1-9 on TFE and I'm sure that paid off in getting me a few questions right.
On the real exam, I started with 1) hole punching 2) cube counting 3) keyhole 4) angle ranking 5) pattern folding 6) TFE.
I marked some questions I didn't know how to do and went back to them when I had time.
RC: 24
DO NOT FEAR. RC on the real DAT was MUCH easier than any RC practice test I've taken. To give you perspective, I took 2 CTD RC and 2 BC RC and I scored a 20 on all of them. It's not that the real DAT has easier questions, but that the prompts they gave you were much easier to read. It was also a plus that my RC test did not have any "the first statement is true, the second is false, etc." type questions.
My strategy for this section was to look at the first 3 questions and start reading to about paragraph 8/14. By then, I could most likely answer the first three questions and had a good understanding of the tone and argument that the reader was putting forth. Then, I would read the next 2 paragraphs and skim the last 4. On the real DAT (at least on my exam), they mostly asked me questions on the beginning and middle portions of the passage and only asked a few questions for the last 4 paragraphs. The questions concerning the last few paragraphs can most definitely be skimmed and I feel this was the best strategy for me. I did not make any notes roadmaps on my scratch paper.
QR: 21
This one was kind of a disappointment for me since I was aiming for a 22 or higher and ended up getting a 21. I was consistently getting 23s on CTD and I was averaging 20 on BC so I guess it balanced out. My strategy was to do the questions in knew how to do right away and mark anything that was a word question or took longer than 20 seconds to set up. Those of you who are doing QR on CTD might be wondering, do they seriously have free questions like "how many centimeters are in 3 yards?" Yes. They most certainly do. There was a surprising amount of free questions on the QR section, which is why I recommend doing all of the easy ones first. Also, I did not memorize any trig identities other than the most basic ones: unit circle, cos^2 + sin^2 = 1, and SOH-CAH-TOA. I think if you skip trig identities, you'll be fine since I only had one question that required any knowledge of trig identities and even then it was quite basic. I also skipped ellipses because maybe one out of all of my practice QR exams had it and I thought it wasn't worth my time.
I did about 4 CTD QR and eventually worked my way up to BC. BC is more difficult than CTD not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of how long it takes to solve the question. You will find yourself constantly running out of time when using BC but that's fine- it's expected. BC states that their QR section is purposely more difficult to prepare you for the real DAT, but I find that doing CTD and BC was my key to success.
The real DAT ended up being in between CTD and BC in terms of difficultly.
Concluding statements:
Some people might read my breakdown and get mad at me for skipping some PAT sections (TFE), math (trig identities), and bio concepts (plant physio, cladistics) but I'm just giving you info on how I studied. Of course, if you have the skin and time for Destroyer, by all means do it,- I'm sure it will boost your DAT score- but Destroyer is not for everyone and it's certainly not the end all be all. I'm just giving you inside tips if you're overwhelmed with studying and want to see what "things" you can get away with and still do reasonably well.
Here's my thoughts on my study materials:
- Cracking the DAT (The Princeton Review): only used for bio section. I think that along makes it worth the price.
- Cliff's AP Bio 3rd edition: very good for general idea for bio. You probably shouldn't use this as your main source of bio knowledge though.
- Crack the DAT software: People say it's outdated and doesn't represent the actual DAT anymore and in some ways its true: sciences are a little too random, PAT is too easy (with exception of cube counting), RC is too hard, QR is a little too easy. But I like CTD because it gives variety. I could do BC all day but CTD asks its questions differently and I don't know... I just like the software. If you're turned off by the price of the product and don't feel like getting it, don't worry too much since you always have BC, which I think is an overall better product.
- Chad's Videos: must get product. Will teach you all you 95% of what you need to know for G-chem and O-chem. The last 5% comes from practice tests. His outlines are great as well.
- 1 month of DAT Bootcamp: this is also a must get. What I like about this product is that it's very consistent: every section is always a bit harder than the real deal, providing you with a good feel for how the actual test is going to be. The only negative I can give it is that you can't take the whole science section- you have to take it one section at a time. For instance, you'll take bio, then it will show your score, then you'll go back to the homepage and take G-chem and it will show your score and so on. I wish BC would allow me to take the whole DAT at a time (one advantage that CTD has over BC) but it doesn't. One thing to note is that the PAT section is noticeably more difficult than the real test. If you master the PAT section on BC, I can't imagine you getting anything lower than a 23 on the real test.
PS: I was not able to write anything during the tutorial so I used the extra 5 minutes I had in the SNS to set up my PAT section. Also, you don't have a review button until you go through all questions. In other words, I would mash "next" on my computer until I went through all of the questions and it sent me to a review screen and a review button popped on the bottom right of my monitor.
Well, hopefully this breakdown is useful since this is my first time posting on SDN. I feel like my post it too long and I kind of rambled a bit but meh. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a post and I'll try to get back to it.
Brian Vu
