- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Dental
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WOO, I have only posted here a few times but I loved reading these posts, and they were extremely helpful, so here goes.
PAT: 23
RC: 25
Bio: 22
Gchem: 24
Ochem: 21
QR:17
TS: 23
AA: 22
*and if someone could explain why my 24 in gchem was 98.5% and someone elses 24 was 96.2%? if we took it on the same day shouldn't it all be the same?
Bio: I honestly thought that this would be harder than what I got, only a few questions I was thrown off by, but other than that pretty basic. I'm almost positive about 10 questions were word for word on some Kaplan test. For this I used Cambell, Cliffs AP, Kaplan, and Destroyer. I'm a biology major, and I have to say that between Cliffs and Cambell, along with knowledge from my Genetics class, I could have gotten this score. I thought destroyer didn't do much, and Kaplan just reinforced cliffs.
Gchem: I was always terrible at Gchem. I used ACS study guide to get a good grasp of basics, then destroyer and kaplan to polish up. Destroyer was amazing for this, but waaay harder. The only thing that threw me off on this section was I didn't have to do any calculations larger than finding moles from grams and MW, and I wasn't used to setting up problems. For this section, if you know the basics you will do well.
Ochem:Not sure how I pulled this off, but the section was very basic, not many tricks at all. I used destroyer, and knew the roadmaps cold. I didn't get any carb/AAS questions, which is good because that was my weakest point. Kaplan is good for this section, and destroyer was waay overkill, but like I said the roadmaps, and the concepts it reinforced helped.
RC: I didn't study for this at all, I just have been reading all of my life. I would read a question, read till I found the answer, then go to the next question and repeat. The tone questions were very easy too, and there were only 2 or 3 per passage. I don't think time is an issue here because I read each passage through at least once, and still had 20 minutes left to check stuff again.
PAT: WEll, this section was a TON easier than CDP, at least the angles, cubes, and hole punching. I would say angles are a little harder than kaplan, but the rest is about the same. If you are getting in the 20's on CDP then you should have no problem here.
QR: this ticked me off, I ran out of time because I spent too much time on a question I didn't know, and at the end when I was filling in answers I saw 3 questions that I easily could have answered in under a minute each, but oh well. I didn't really study much for this other than go over trig identities, and permutations. The section wasn't too bad, I just didn't manage time effectively.
overall I'm very pleased with my results, now I just have to pester my LOR writers to get their LOR's in so I can submit my ap. . I will post my kaplan and TS practice tests when I have more time, but feel free to ask questions. Hopefully I can help people as much as I was helped.
PAT: 23
RC: 25
Bio: 22
Gchem: 24
Ochem: 21
QR:17
TS: 23
AA: 22
*and if someone could explain why my 24 in gchem was 98.5% and someone elses 24 was 96.2%? if we took it on the same day shouldn't it all be the same?
Bio: I honestly thought that this would be harder than what I got, only a few questions I was thrown off by, but other than that pretty basic. I'm almost positive about 10 questions were word for word on some Kaplan test. For this I used Cambell, Cliffs AP, Kaplan, and Destroyer. I'm a biology major, and I have to say that between Cliffs and Cambell, along with knowledge from my Genetics class, I could have gotten this score. I thought destroyer didn't do much, and Kaplan just reinforced cliffs.
Gchem: I was always terrible at Gchem. I used ACS study guide to get a good grasp of basics, then destroyer and kaplan to polish up. Destroyer was amazing for this, but waaay harder. The only thing that threw me off on this section was I didn't have to do any calculations larger than finding moles from grams and MW, and I wasn't used to setting up problems. For this section, if you know the basics you will do well.
Ochem:Not sure how I pulled this off, but the section was very basic, not many tricks at all. I used destroyer, and knew the roadmaps cold. I didn't get any carb/AAS questions, which is good because that was my weakest point. Kaplan is good for this section, and destroyer was waay overkill, but like I said the roadmaps, and the concepts it reinforced helped.
RC: I didn't study for this at all, I just have been reading all of my life. I would read a question, read till I found the answer, then go to the next question and repeat. The tone questions were very easy too, and there were only 2 or 3 per passage. I don't think time is an issue here because I read each passage through at least once, and still had 20 minutes left to check stuff again.
PAT: WEll, this section was a TON easier than CDP, at least the angles, cubes, and hole punching. I would say angles are a little harder than kaplan, but the rest is about the same. If you are getting in the 20's on CDP then you should have no problem here.
QR: this ticked me off, I ran out of time because I spent too much time on a question I didn't know, and at the end when I was filling in answers I saw 3 questions that I easily could have answered in under a minute each, but oh well. I didn't really study much for this other than go over trig identities, and permutations. The section wasn't too bad, I just didn't manage time effectively.
overall I'm very pleased with my results, now I just have to pester my LOR writers to get their LOR's in so I can submit my ap. . I will post my kaplan and TS practice tests when I have more time, but feel free to ask questions. Hopefully I can help people as much as I was helped.
Last edited:
