- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
Took the DAT and Received:
BIO: 20
GC: 23
OC: 24
PAT: 24
RC: 26
QR: 17
TS: 22
AA: 22
BIO: a lot of questions that i had never seen or even studied.
GC: The questions were slightly tweeked from the way CHAD or DAT DESTROYER has them.
OC: Simple stuff most from the 1st sem ochem.
PAT: The only way to prepare for this section is with CRACK DAT PAT. The real DAT angles and pattern folding on my exam were much harder than i had seen before.
RC: The only way that I found to score good on this section is to practice CRACK DAT READING (Just for timing on the reads: the questions on CRACK DAT READING are not the same type on the DAT.) And TopScore's Readings (TOPSCORE has the best representation of the reading section i have seen or practiced. The question types are similar and the format is similar.)
QR: I felt like the questions were MUCH MUCH harder than the DAT DESTROYER. I would recommend probably getting the MATH DESTROYER because the real DAT questions 🙂thumbdown) were HARDER.
BIO: 20
GC: 23
OC: 24
PAT: 24
RC: 26
QR: 17
TS: 22
AA: 22
BIO: a lot of questions that i had never seen or even studied.
GC: The questions were slightly tweeked from the way CHAD or DAT DESTROYER has them.
OC: Simple stuff most from the 1st sem ochem.
PAT: The only way to prepare for this section is with CRACK DAT PAT. The real DAT angles and pattern folding on my exam were much harder than i had seen before.
RC: The only way that I found to score good on this section is to practice CRACK DAT READING (Just for timing on the reads: the questions on CRACK DAT READING are not the same type on the DAT.) And TopScore's Readings (TOPSCORE has the best representation of the reading section i have seen or practiced. The question types are similar and the format is similar.)
QR: I felt like the questions were MUCH MUCH harder than the DAT DESTROYER. I would recommend probably getting the MATH DESTROYER because the real DAT questions 🙂thumbdown) were HARDER.