Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
First off I just want to say thanks to everyone who contributes to SDN as I used SDN as my sole resource for figuring out how to study for the DAT and I felt it only right to give back and try to help some others.
My actual DAT scores:
Bio:22
GC:30
OC:22
PA:24
RC:22
QR:24
TS:24
AA:24
I debated taking the Kaplan review course, however based on other people's input decided if I had a schedule to follow I could study on my own just as well and keep $1400 in my pocket.
I based my study schedule off this:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=719365
I modified it so I started studying a week after the spring semester ended and I only studied 5 days a week during the first review portion (kaplan/cliffs).
The destroyer portion of the schedule I changed to 6 days a week. It was tough to stay motivated especially in the beginning of summer and I fell to like 6-7 days behind schedule so I ended studying everyday the last month or so trying to catch back up. Overall I'd say this is a great model to base your schedule on but if I had to do it again, I'd work in more free days, b/c if you're anything like me you're going to take days off or just have days you really don't feel like studying.
Study materials:
Kaplan Blue Book
Cliff's AP Bio
Dat Destroyer 2012 w/ Math
Crack DAT PAT
I really thought about using Chad's videos but I had just finished OChem and was a TA for gen chem the spring before taking the DAT so I really felt I just needed some quick brushing up for those sections, but based on other's suggestions I would definitely use the videos if you feel like you struggle in those sections.
Before starting my study schedule I took kaplans free DAT test online and scored
Bio:15
GC:16
OC:17
PA:17
RC:15
QR:17
TS:16
AA:16
I was pretty disappointed with the scores, especially GC and OC because I thought I knew the material better and bio felt completely random and trivial.
For the next month I followed the descriptions in the suggested schedule to the tee, doing a chapter of each section from KBB and Cliff's each day. KBB overall provided a good review for gen chem and ochem as well as did a good job of introducing the types of PA questions. However I felt it lacked severely in QR as well as bio. I read the KBB bio to supplement Cliff's and for the most part the info was redundant but KBB did hit some things Cliff's failed to mention. Cliffs was a great review because it is super detailed and very condensed so it presents alot of info very quickly and I would highly recommend using cliff's for the bio portion.
After I completed the first month of studying and had gotten through Cliff's and KBB I took the kaplan practice test included in the KBB and got:
Bio:19
GC:19
OC:19
PA:20
RC:18
QR:?
TS:?
AA:?
I continued to follow the schedule and used DAT Destroyer and Crack DAT PAT for the next month but had to modify it a bit to accomodate the additional questions in the 2012 version. I found the crack dat pat questions to be very similiar to the actual PAT. The angles on the real thing were probably a bit harder and the hole punching was a bit easier but on the real test it was difficult to tell where the holes were punched. Overall I would say Crack PAT is great practice for the real thing. Also I was having serious problems trying to finish all 90 questions in an hr on the Crack tests, but on the real thing i finished with several minutes left. Not sure if it was just adrenaline but I wouldn't stress too bad about time if you aren't getting to the last few questions on the Crack tests.
DAT Destroyer is by far the greatest study tool I used. I didn't use Chad's videos, top score, achiever, or some of the other study materials out there so I can't compare them, but I would put Destroyer up there with the best. Destroyer questions aren't structured in the same way as real DAT questions because the majority of Destroyer questions are like " which statement is false" or "which statement is true" which allows for 1 question to present several different key facts. Destroyer had explanations that were literally word for word answers to some of the questions on the real DAT. I'm not sure if I just got lucky on the questions that I drew, or if Destroyer is really that good. Either way Destroyer was worth every cent of the $200 they charge. I found the best way to study destroyer is to answer each question and when you grade your answers make sure you know everything included in the question. Make sure you know the full explanation and even the definitions of the wrong choices. I made notecards of all the vocab I didn't know and explanations I didn't understand. Go over the notecards for 15 minutes every night to keep reinforcing the things you didn't know. When you finish going through the questions for the first time do them again and make sure you really understand the questions you missed for the second time, (You'll be surprised how much you remember) and also make sure to fully understand why you got questions right. Also don't worry about timing yourself on destroyer questions, because I couldnt get anywhere close to finishing Destroyer in time and on the real test I finished the science section over 20 minutes early.
Math Destroyer also was a great resource. The first few tests I was getting to about #20-25 before time ran out and by test 10 I was getting to 40 having skipped a few. Math destroyer is very very similiar to the types of questions on the real DAT and works great for getting down your timing as well as brushing up on miscellaneous math thats bound to show up.
Two days before my test date I took the ADEA 2009 DAT that's offered online. If you want to use the test to review I would suggest buying the paper copy as the online copy only shows what you missed. However, I only took the test in order to make sure my pace was good and just to simulate testing conditions as close to the real thing as possible. My scores on the 2009 practice test were:
Bio:19
GC:25
OC:19
PA:23
RC:20
QR:20
TS:21
Overall I think the practice test was very similiar to the real thing. Science and reading difficulty seemed about the same. QR on the practice test seemed a little harder than the real test. The perceptual ability section on the practice seemed easier than the real DAT especially the angles section but I ended up with a higher score on the real thing so who knows... Either way I found the 2009 test to be a good feel for the difficulty level and for just getting acclamated to the computer format.
Hope this helps at least someone out there, and thanks again to all SDN contributers, I probably would have ended up with much lower scores and spending $1400 on a Kaplan course.
My actual DAT scores:
Bio:22
GC:30
OC:22
PA:24
RC:22
QR:24
TS:24
AA:24
I debated taking the Kaplan review course, however based on other people's input decided if I had a schedule to follow I could study on my own just as well and keep $1400 in my pocket.
I based my study schedule off this:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=719365
I modified it so I started studying a week after the spring semester ended and I only studied 5 days a week during the first review portion (kaplan/cliffs).
The destroyer portion of the schedule I changed to 6 days a week. It was tough to stay motivated especially in the beginning of summer and I fell to like 6-7 days behind schedule so I ended studying everyday the last month or so trying to catch back up. Overall I'd say this is a great model to base your schedule on but if I had to do it again, I'd work in more free days, b/c if you're anything like me you're going to take days off or just have days you really don't feel like studying.
Study materials:
Kaplan Blue Book
Cliff's AP Bio
Dat Destroyer 2012 w/ Math
Crack DAT PAT
I really thought about using Chad's videos but I had just finished OChem and was a TA for gen chem the spring before taking the DAT so I really felt I just needed some quick brushing up for those sections, but based on other's suggestions I would definitely use the videos if you feel like you struggle in those sections.
Before starting my study schedule I took kaplans free DAT test online and scored
Bio:15
GC:16
OC:17
PA:17
RC:15
QR:17
TS:16
AA:16
I was pretty disappointed with the scores, especially GC and OC because I thought I knew the material better and bio felt completely random and trivial.
For the next month I followed the descriptions in the suggested schedule to the tee, doing a chapter of each section from KBB and Cliff's each day. KBB overall provided a good review for gen chem and ochem as well as did a good job of introducing the types of PA questions. However I felt it lacked severely in QR as well as bio. I read the KBB bio to supplement Cliff's and for the most part the info was redundant but KBB did hit some things Cliff's failed to mention. Cliffs was a great review because it is super detailed and very condensed so it presents alot of info very quickly and I would highly recommend using cliff's for the bio portion.
After I completed the first month of studying and had gotten through Cliff's and KBB I took the kaplan practice test included in the KBB and got:
Bio:19
GC:19
OC:19
PA:20
RC:18
QR:?
TS:?
AA:?
I continued to follow the schedule and used DAT Destroyer and Crack DAT PAT for the next month but had to modify it a bit to accomodate the additional questions in the 2012 version. I found the crack dat pat questions to be very similiar to the actual PAT. The angles on the real thing were probably a bit harder and the hole punching was a bit easier but on the real test it was difficult to tell where the holes were punched. Overall I would say Crack PAT is great practice for the real thing. Also I was having serious problems trying to finish all 90 questions in an hr on the Crack tests, but on the real thing i finished with several minutes left. Not sure if it was just adrenaline but I wouldn't stress too bad about time if you aren't getting to the last few questions on the Crack tests.
DAT Destroyer is by far the greatest study tool I used. I didn't use Chad's videos, top score, achiever, or some of the other study materials out there so I can't compare them, but I would put Destroyer up there with the best. Destroyer questions aren't structured in the same way as real DAT questions because the majority of Destroyer questions are like " which statement is false" or "which statement is true" which allows for 1 question to present several different key facts. Destroyer had explanations that were literally word for word answers to some of the questions on the real DAT. I'm not sure if I just got lucky on the questions that I drew, or if Destroyer is really that good. Either way Destroyer was worth every cent of the $200 they charge. I found the best way to study destroyer is to answer each question and when you grade your answers make sure you know everything included in the question. Make sure you know the full explanation and even the definitions of the wrong choices. I made notecards of all the vocab I didn't know and explanations I didn't understand. Go over the notecards for 15 minutes every night to keep reinforcing the things you didn't know. When you finish going through the questions for the first time do them again and make sure you really understand the questions you missed for the second time, (You'll be surprised how much you remember) and also make sure to fully understand why you got questions right. Also don't worry about timing yourself on destroyer questions, because I couldnt get anywhere close to finishing Destroyer in time and on the real test I finished the science section over 20 minutes early.
Math Destroyer also was a great resource. The first few tests I was getting to about #20-25 before time ran out and by test 10 I was getting to 40 having skipped a few. Math destroyer is very very similiar to the types of questions on the real DAT and works great for getting down your timing as well as brushing up on miscellaneous math thats bound to show up.
Two days before my test date I took the ADEA 2009 DAT that's offered online. If you want to use the test to review I would suggest buying the paper copy as the online copy only shows what you missed. However, I only took the test in order to make sure my pace was good and just to simulate testing conditions as close to the real thing as possible. My scores on the 2009 practice test were:
Bio:19
GC:25
OC:19
PA:23
RC:20
QR:20
TS:21
Overall I think the practice test was very similiar to the real thing. Science and reading difficulty seemed about the same. QR on the practice test seemed a little harder than the real test. The perceptual ability section on the practice seemed easier than the real DAT especially the angles section but I ended up with a higher score on the real thing so who knows... Either way I found the 2009 test to be a good feel for the difficulty level and for just getting acclamated to the computer format.
Hope this helps at least someone out there, and thanks again to all SDN contributers, I probably would have ended up with much lower scores and spending $1400 on a Kaplan course.
Last edited:
