- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
I've been lurking on here for years and have been waiting forever to write one of these!! I wanted it to be my first post. Thank you to everyone on SDN, these forums are really a great resource.
PA: 21 (87.9)
QR: 21 (96.4)
RC: 22 (84.4)
Bio: 19 (76.6) 👎
GC: 23 (95.4)
OC: 24 (95.7)
TS: 21 (91.6)
AA: 22 (97.0) 😍
*The testing center I was at did not have erasable markers. We got laminated graph paper and fine tipped pens. The ink was water soluble so they actually ended up being erasable anyway.
PAT (21/87.9%): Only used CrackPAT for this. I got the 10 test version but only ended up doing 9 of the tests. I got 17's on the first 4 tests which was really depressing but then all of a sudden I kept getting 21's and then on test 9 I got a 23!! I decided to stop there to keep my confidence up. Crack is really all you need and don't worry if you score low in the beginning!! All of a sudden it will click. I literally took a few days off because I was super frustrated and all of a sudden was getting good scores. I can't explain it.
Keyholes were much easier on the real DAT than Crack. I felt that there was more of an emphasis on proportion than anything else. Less obscure shapes.
TFE just felt different. I relied on the line counting technique for Crack because I had trouble visualizing the 3D image, but I knew on the real DAT you couldn't do that (which ended up being true). I practiced with kaplan to try and visualize the image more since their sets were easier. TFE on the real DAT has less obscure shapes than on Crack so visualizing wasn't much of an issue. Overall this section wasn't that bad.
Angles have always been my worst section. I feel like I have tried using every technique and sometimes I just couldn't tell the difference between the 3 degree angles on Crack. I was averaging between 8 and 10 correct tops. The real DAT was much easier, but I still feel that it was still one of my weaker sections.
I love hole punching!! This is probably my favorite section. I drew out my grids before during the tutorial. This section was much easier than Crack. The only problem with this section was that the squares were not proportional which was really annoying. You think they would be more uniform since this was the actual test.
Cube counting was no problem and pretty standard. No floating cubes, illusions or massive structures. Easier than Crack.
Pattern folding was much harder than Crack. Everyone says it and it is so true! In Crack you can usually rely on finding the dominant shape and don't need to mentally fold much. On the real DAT there wasn't always a shape you could pick out which meant more mental folding.
QR (21/96.4%): Definitely on par with Math Destroyer. I did 10 of the tests and then decided to stop. I only went through them once because I wasn't really having timing issues. Conversion factors were given to me for the problems they were needed which was nice. There was less of an emphasis on trig than I thought but definitely know your identities! Finished with a few minutes to spare. I thought I was going to be more burnt out at this point but I was so excited that it was going to be over that I went by so quickly! The one thing I was really glad I remembered were the standard deviation percentages.
RC (22/84.4%): Didn't practice much for this section, but how can you really. Search and destroy worked for my passages so I quickly skimmed the passage and then just started. The passages weren't too difficult much easier to navigate than topscore. The tone/inference questions are also nothing to be scared of and werent too difficult to answer with just skimming.
Bio (19/76.6): I am really disappointed in my score for this section. The test was not what I expected. It was really random, but not the kind of random questions that I thought they would ask (like taxonomy details, plants, etc.) I started off with KBB, but it was very basic. I also read Cliffs twice which was a good resource. I went through the Destroyer once and bought datQvault. I was ranging from 19-22 on the 10 benchmark tests. I knew that physio was my weakest subject since I had not taken it yet so I read the 10ish chapters on physio in the Cambell book to supplement. I wish I hadnt since there wasnt much physio on my version which was really surprising. I watched all of the videos on ARIS and took the video quizzes. These were a really great resource. I also used Alans notes as a last resource after I had gone through everything else. I felt like I was ALWAYS studying bio and I feel that I had a pretty good grasp on the material, but maybe luck wasnt on my side for this section today because I really was expecting to do better.
GC (23/95.4%) Ive always been better at chem than bio and thank the lord because GC and OC carried my TS score. I watched Chads videos once and did his quizzes. Then I went through the destroyer once. I did pretty well my first time through. I started going through it a second time, but I felt like I had memorized the answers so I just read the answer part instead and left it at that. The day before my test, I re-took Chads quizzes for practice. The test was very straightforward, no exceptions to any rules came up and there were barely any calculations. I maybe had a max of 2 that I actually had to work out myself. I actually thought that the destroyer (minus the crazy calculations) and chads quizzes were very on par with the real DAT.
OC (24/95.7%) Ochem is my favorite subject. The test was very straightforward. There was less of an emphasis on reactions than I thought (destroyer was way overkill) and more of an emphasis on lab techniques. I didnt really study these, but thankfully I just remembered back to ochem lab and they were fairly easy to answer.
For practice tests I used topscore and the 2007 ADA test. I ordered the 2009 test but it never came in .
Bio/GC/OC/PAT/RC/QR/TS/AA
Topscore 1: 19/19/19/20/21/21/19/20
Topscore 2: 18/19/20/X/21/20/19/20 both taken a week and a half before
2007: 21/28/30 TS 26 taken day before
I didnt really like topscore. I feel that all it was good for was practicing stamina because looking back it really wasnt like the actual test at all for me. The 2007 ADA was just too easy so I didnt end up finishing it.
I studied for about 3 months almost every day. Some days I would study for 10 hours and others not at all. It really just depended on what I had going on that day and how burnt out I was getting. I was originally scheduled to take my test last week but I rescheduled and Im glad I did because I was much calmer (or as calm as someone can be). I have a 3.8 overall and a 3.85 science GPA, majoring in biochem, and I go to a UC. I will be applying next cycle. My biggest advice is to take the test when you know you are ready. For me this was the point where I didnt care anymore and just wanted to get it over with. Time to enjoy life and good luck to everyone!!
PA: 21 (87.9)
QR: 21 (96.4)
RC: 22 (84.4)
Bio: 19 (76.6) 👎
GC: 23 (95.4)
OC: 24 (95.7)
TS: 21 (91.6)
AA: 22 (97.0) 😍
*The testing center I was at did not have erasable markers. We got laminated graph paper and fine tipped pens. The ink was water soluble so they actually ended up being erasable anyway.
PAT (21/87.9%): Only used CrackPAT for this. I got the 10 test version but only ended up doing 9 of the tests. I got 17's on the first 4 tests which was really depressing but then all of a sudden I kept getting 21's and then on test 9 I got a 23!! I decided to stop there to keep my confidence up. Crack is really all you need and don't worry if you score low in the beginning!! All of a sudden it will click. I literally took a few days off because I was super frustrated and all of a sudden was getting good scores. I can't explain it.
Keyholes were much easier on the real DAT than Crack. I felt that there was more of an emphasis on proportion than anything else. Less obscure shapes.
TFE just felt different. I relied on the line counting technique for Crack because I had trouble visualizing the 3D image, but I knew on the real DAT you couldn't do that (which ended up being true). I practiced with kaplan to try and visualize the image more since their sets were easier. TFE on the real DAT has less obscure shapes than on Crack so visualizing wasn't much of an issue. Overall this section wasn't that bad.
Angles have always been my worst section. I feel like I have tried using every technique and sometimes I just couldn't tell the difference between the 3 degree angles on Crack. I was averaging between 8 and 10 correct tops. The real DAT was much easier, but I still feel that it was still one of my weaker sections.
I love hole punching!! This is probably my favorite section. I drew out my grids before during the tutorial. This section was much easier than Crack. The only problem with this section was that the squares were not proportional which was really annoying. You think they would be more uniform since this was the actual test.
Cube counting was no problem and pretty standard. No floating cubes, illusions or massive structures. Easier than Crack.
Pattern folding was much harder than Crack. Everyone says it and it is so true! In Crack you can usually rely on finding the dominant shape and don't need to mentally fold much. On the real DAT there wasn't always a shape you could pick out which meant more mental folding.
QR (21/96.4%): Definitely on par with Math Destroyer. I did 10 of the tests and then decided to stop. I only went through them once because I wasn't really having timing issues. Conversion factors were given to me for the problems they were needed which was nice. There was less of an emphasis on trig than I thought but definitely know your identities! Finished with a few minutes to spare. I thought I was going to be more burnt out at this point but I was so excited that it was going to be over that I went by so quickly! The one thing I was really glad I remembered were the standard deviation percentages.
RC (22/84.4%): Didn't practice much for this section, but how can you really. Search and destroy worked for my passages so I quickly skimmed the passage and then just started. The passages weren't too difficult much easier to navigate than topscore. The tone/inference questions are also nothing to be scared of and werent too difficult to answer with just skimming.
Bio (19/76.6): I am really disappointed in my score for this section. The test was not what I expected. It was really random, but not the kind of random questions that I thought they would ask (like taxonomy details, plants, etc.) I started off with KBB, but it was very basic. I also read Cliffs twice which was a good resource. I went through the Destroyer once and bought datQvault. I was ranging from 19-22 on the 10 benchmark tests. I knew that physio was my weakest subject since I had not taken it yet so I read the 10ish chapters on physio in the Cambell book to supplement. I wish I hadnt since there wasnt much physio on my version which was really surprising. I watched all of the videos on ARIS and took the video quizzes. These were a really great resource. I also used Alans notes as a last resource after I had gone through everything else. I felt like I was ALWAYS studying bio and I feel that I had a pretty good grasp on the material, but maybe luck wasnt on my side for this section today because I really was expecting to do better.
GC (23/95.4%) Ive always been better at chem than bio and thank the lord because GC and OC carried my TS score. I watched Chads videos once and did his quizzes. Then I went through the destroyer once. I did pretty well my first time through. I started going through it a second time, but I felt like I had memorized the answers so I just read the answer part instead and left it at that. The day before my test, I re-took Chads quizzes for practice. The test was very straightforward, no exceptions to any rules came up and there were barely any calculations. I maybe had a max of 2 that I actually had to work out myself. I actually thought that the destroyer (minus the crazy calculations) and chads quizzes were very on par with the real DAT.
OC (24/95.7%) Ochem is my favorite subject. The test was very straightforward. There was less of an emphasis on reactions than I thought (destroyer was way overkill) and more of an emphasis on lab techniques. I didnt really study these, but thankfully I just remembered back to ochem lab and they were fairly easy to answer.
For practice tests I used topscore and the 2007 ADA test. I ordered the 2009 test but it never came in .
Bio/GC/OC/PAT/RC/QR/TS/AA
Topscore 1: 19/19/19/20/21/21/19/20
Topscore 2: 18/19/20/X/21/20/19/20 both taken a week and a half before
2007: 21/28/30 TS 26 taken day before
I didnt really like topscore. I feel that all it was good for was practicing stamina because looking back it really wasnt like the actual test at all for me. The 2007 ADA was just too easy so I didnt end up finishing it.
I studied for about 3 months almost every day. Some days I would study for 10 hours and others not at all. It really just depended on what I had going on that day and how burnt out I was getting. I was originally scheduled to take my test last week but I rescheduled and Im glad I did because I was much calmer (or as calm as someone can be). I have a 3.8 overall and a 3.85 science GPA, majoring in biochem, and I go to a UC. I will be applying next cycle. My biggest advice is to take the test when you know you are ready. For me this was the point where I didnt care anymore and just wanted to get it over with. Time to enjoy life and good luck to everyone!!
