- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 89
Like others, I've lurked and gleaned invaluable information from all of you over the past couple of months and now I'd like to pay it forward. Here's how I did:
PAT: 21
QR: 22
RC: 25
Bio: 27
GC: 22
OC: 21
TS: 22
AA: 23
BIGGEST REGRET: Not using Chad for Chem.
Background:
I'm a non-traditional applicant and a California resident who originally graduated with a liberal arts degree with a TERRIBLE GPA to boot (~2.3). Three years ago, at 27, I returned to school to do a 2-year post-bacc program (UG career-changer), which I completed it with a 3.9.
For the DAT, I slowly ratcheted up my workload. I wanted to draw out my timeline so that I'd naturally be able to absorb as much info as possible without worrying about having info I'd crammed in escaping during stressful test conditions. I studied for roughly four months, starting at about 1-2 hours/day, and hitting ~10+ hours/day in the final month or so. I rotateed subjects every 2-3 days so that none of them would decay.
I went through KBB and Cliffs several times, creating lengthy outlines, though I never went back over them. The process of taking notes was enough to help me learn. What was effective, though, was creating several cheat-sheets I'd update on a weekly basis with info that was foreign to me or that I struggled to retain and recall. I'd look over those every night and first thing in the morning, then periodically throughout the day.
For the actual process of studying, I may have put in a lot of hours on any given day, but I took many breaks. If I got stumped, I'd study it, then play a game on my phone for a few minutes or so, eliminating the problem from my short-term memory, before then going back and quizzing myself again. This prevented information overload and allowed me to to be digest everything in a productive manner.
My Materials:
-Crack DAT PAT
-Math Destroyer (2011)
-DAT Destroyer (2011)
-Cliff's AP Bio
-Kaplan DAT Prep Course (+ associated materials such as KBB)
-Janice Gorzynski Smith (Organic Chemistry Text)
I leaned on heavily on all of the above, especially the Kaplan book, which was my Bible. The Ochem textbook was used (infrequently) for reactions I couldn't find adequately explained anywhere else -- helped my confidence, but turned out to be overkill.
It seems like very few people use Kaplan, but having classes to attend every week and having a structured schedule proved initially useful in kicking me into gear (though worth the price tag? Questionable.) The practice tests were much less straightforward, with plenty of trick questions, than what I found on test day, but it did help me patch holes in my learning that I otherwise wouldn't have been aware of. Also, Kaplan's hole punches were a joke.
PAT:
I was disappointed in my score here -- I had been scoring around 23 on the CDP practice tests. I think I erred in that I put in most of my work here early on, and then neglected it until the final days, which left me a little rusty.
Keyholes - Very similar to CDP. If anything, the figures were slightly less complex on the actual DAT. I spent a lot of my non-studying time walking around and rotating figures in my head. It seemed to prime me pretty well.
TFE: - Always my worst section (I always get them, I'm just extremely slow). I always skip through these and come back at the end. I used line-counting to confirm one answer, the rest were through visualization. My figures were simpler than those found in CDP, but I was short on time and had to make a few educated guesses toward the end.
Angle Ranking - I've read others report that the angle ranking on the real thing was significantly easier than what was found CDP. Absolutely not true in my case. This section destroyed me as there wasn't even one gimme. All four angles for nearly every single question were within 5 degrees of each other. I spent no time on this and it showed, though I wonder how much I possibly could've improved. I'm positive it was this section that dropped me from the 23 range.
Hole Punch - LOS. The size of the holes varied from problem to problem, but it wasn't a huge hindrance. I had several half-folds, but with LOS, they posed no problem.
Cube Counting - I don't think any of mine exceeded 15 total cubes. During the run-up to the test, I would count the total number of cubes before starting my tally as a built-in check. I dropped this because I wasted a lot of time having to re-tally if the numbers didn't match. It wasn't worth it because missing a cube was a rare occurrence. Trust yourself and move on.
Pattern Folding - The majority of the ones I saw were folding related rather than feature matching. Like keyholes, I devoted a lot of non-studying hours just visualizing. I cut out several common shapes and randomly shaded various sides. I'd then fold them in my head, orienting them at every possible angle, until I could do it quickly. If stumped, I'd take my cut-out and make the fold, study it, then try again. It takes some time, but you'll get it with practice.
Summary - If I were to do it over again, I'd invest in the other resources that people use like Achiever. CDP was adequate and faithful in its level of difficulty, but having a greater challenge would've been beneficial. It probably would've improved my speed, the lack of which was my downfall.
Bio:
I split my time between Kaplan and Cliffs AP Bio. Cliffs had way more detail than what was required, but it also had plenty of info that Kaplan didn't touch. However, Kaplan was great at hitting on topics that didn't seem all that important, but were likely to appear on the DAT. For example, Kaplan loves homologous structures and that actually appeared on my test. Also, I'd taken both Anatomy and Physio and it was immensely helpful. Not in terms of the questions I encountered, but in giving me a broader base when going through all the material. My test also asked nothing about plants nor classifications.
GChem:
Pretty much exactly like the Kaplan problem sets, except with round, easily calculated numbers. One of my biggest fears going into the test was not having a calculator as a crutch, but the terror proved unfounded. Just be sure you know how to estimate pHs from Kas. There was a Hess' Law problem where none of the numbers made sense. Aside from that, I understood every question. I'm sure I dropped a few points from careless errors.
Ochem:
Honestly, my score here shocked me. I breezed through this section. I wouldn't have been surprised if I'd been presented with a perfect score. The questions were waaaaaay easier than Destroyer. Don't bother looking over the roadmaps. I could've skipped Destroyer entirely (nothing crazy like acetoacetic ester formation, that's for sure), memorized all the reactions in Kaplan, and been okay. Where I went wrong is that I probably spent a bit too much time on memorizing every single reaction (AND mechanism), and should've focused a bit more on some of the more basic conceptual stuff. I probably mis-applied some of what I learned, hence the disconnect between the score I expected and what I actually got. I strongly recommend reapportioning time away from learning reactions towards other content (translating between various types of projections, drawing sugars, spec values and the difference between coupled and uncoupled spin).
RC:
I had two science passages and one non-science passage. Considering my past life as a liberal arts guy and a writer, I spent zero prep on this. I completed the section with 15+ minutes to spare. Even then, there were a few questions I struggled to answer. In my opinion, several of them were just poorly written and had answers with varying degrees of being correct. The trick was to identify the MOST correct one. This bothered me because it was very subjective and what one person interprets may be completely different from the next person -- and neither one of them would be wrong.
Kaplan's strategy is to outline the passage and to note the primary idea from each paragraph. I can see how some may gain from this, but I found it to be tedious. Mapping forced me to consider the notes I wanted to make per paragraph, rather than focusing on the content and integrating the entire passage as a coherent whole. I dropped this approach prior to the test and just read the passages straight-up. If you're confident with RC and you're mapping, try forsaking that method and things may get easier.
Also, it sounds obvious, but the way the question itself is asked can provide hints. For example, I had one problem that asked for the percentage of the population with a disease (1%), a number which is explicitly given. A sentence followed stating, "A higher percentage of people suffer to a lesser extent.." The question was worded along the lines of, "APPXORIMATELY how many people........", which made the tempting answer of 1% unlikely. Instead of jumping straight into SaD (seek and destroy), try to dig in and figure out the purpose of the question and why it's worded the way it's worded. That's the best I can explain it.
QR:
The calculator sucks, plain and simple. Mine was super laggy. I nearly made an error on one question due to my inputs not registering. If your calculator is as bad as mine, remember to observe each digit appearing on screen before clicking again.
The section, again, was much easier than Destroyer. There weren't any intricate chance/probability problems of any sort. If you do well on Destroyer, you'll crush this section. Don't even bother with tests 11 and 12 in Destroyer (2011). They serve no purpose other than to shatter your soul. The only question that was completely novel to me was one on amplitude (comparing sin(x) to sin(2x+1)). There were a few trick questions, one of which I caught right when time expired and I wasn't able to change: 24 numbered students per row, what's the number of the 3rd student in the 5th row? The quick reaction is (5x24)+3, instead of the correct (4x24)+3. For QR, interpreting the questions correctly is half the battle. The calculations and concepts themselves are simple.
Conclusion:
In hindsight, I overstudied a bit. For practice problems that stumped me, I spent a lot of time researching why stuff happened and branching out into related topics. Instead of drilling so deeply into all the minutiae I encountered, I would've been better served investing in all the other materials (Topscore, Achiever, Chad, Bootcamp, etc.). that people use and simulating the real test instead. I actually re-scheduled my original date and pushed it back two weeks. Based on how poorly I was doing on a multitude of Kaplan problem sets and on my depressing battle with Destroyer, I had little confidence going in. Believe it or not, the real thing really is easier. The ADA does a fantastic job of testing your understanding of the material, and not trying to trick you with trap answers. The "exception" type problems were extremely rare.
There are plenty of brilliant geniuses here who put in the work and blow the DAT out of the water. I'm here to tell you that you can be completely average and still rock it. I've never been good at retaining info and it takes me longer than it should to grasp concepts. There was more than one occasion where going through Destroyer for the fourth time, I'd encounter a problem from the previous day that I'd not only answer incorrectly, I'd literally have no recollection of having ever seen it in my life. As I suggested above, I tried to compensate for my weaknesses by studying over an extended period of time, giving me a longer window to process and get comfortable with the material. The DAT covers a lot, but it's not the monster it's made out to be. If you put in the time and study your ass off, you are absolutely guaranteed to do well.
Also, if you're a nontraditional candidate from a non-science background and you're thinking about going back to school to complete your science pre-reqs, there's hope. You're just as capable as any "science" person and there's nothing inherently different about your brain. Don't be intimidated. Doing well is not an impossible feat if you're serious and determined to succeed.
Cheers and best of luck!
Update: Accepted to multiple schools and will be starting in 2014!
PAT: 21
QR: 22
RC: 25
Bio: 27
GC: 22
OC: 21
TS: 22
AA: 23
BIGGEST REGRET: Not using Chad for Chem.
Background:
I'm a non-traditional applicant and a California resident who originally graduated with a liberal arts degree with a TERRIBLE GPA to boot (~2.3). Three years ago, at 27, I returned to school to do a 2-year post-bacc program (UG career-changer), which I completed it with a 3.9.
For the DAT, I slowly ratcheted up my workload. I wanted to draw out my timeline so that I'd naturally be able to absorb as much info as possible without worrying about having info I'd crammed in escaping during stressful test conditions. I studied for roughly four months, starting at about 1-2 hours/day, and hitting ~10+ hours/day in the final month or so. I rotateed subjects every 2-3 days so that none of them would decay.
I went through KBB and Cliffs several times, creating lengthy outlines, though I never went back over them. The process of taking notes was enough to help me learn. What was effective, though, was creating several cheat-sheets I'd update on a weekly basis with info that was foreign to me or that I struggled to retain and recall. I'd look over those every night and first thing in the morning, then periodically throughout the day.
For the actual process of studying, I may have put in a lot of hours on any given day, but I took many breaks. If I got stumped, I'd study it, then play a game on my phone for a few minutes or so, eliminating the problem from my short-term memory, before then going back and quizzing myself again. This prevented information overload and allowed me to to be digest everything in a productive manner.
My Materials:
-Crack DAT PAT
-Math Destroyer (2011)
-DAT Destroyer (2011)
-Cliff's AP Bio
-Kaplan DAT Prep Course (+ associated materials such as KBB)
-Janice Gorzynski Smith (Organic Chemistry Text)
I leaned on heavily on all of the above, especially the Kaplan book, which was my Bible. The Ochem textbook was used (infrequently) for reactions I couldn't find adequately explained anywhere else -- helped my confidence, but turned out to be overkill.
It seems like very few people use Kaplan, but having classes to attend every week and having a structured schedule proved initially useful in kicking me into gear (though worth the price tag? Questionable.) The practice tests were much less straightforward, with plenty of trick questions, than what I found on test day, but it did help me patch holes in my learning that I otherwise wouldn't have been aware of. Also, Kaplan's hole punches were a joke.
PAT:
I was disappointed in my score here -- I had been scoring around 23 on the CDP practice tests. I think I erred in that I put in most of my work here early on, and then neglected it until the final days, which left me a little rusty.
Keyholes - Very similar to CDP. If anything, the figures were slightly less complex on the actual DAT. I spent a lot of my non-studying time walking around and rotating figures in my head. It seemed to prime me pretty well.
TFE: - Always my worst section (I always get them, I'm just extremely slow). I always skip through these and come back at the end. I used line-counting to confirm one answer, the rest were through visualization. My figures were simpler than those found in CDP, but I was short on time and had to make a few educated guesses toward the end.
Angle Ranking - I've read others report that the angle ranking on the real thing was significantly easier than what was found CDP. Absolutely not true in my case. This section destroyed me as there wasn't even one gimme. All four angles for nearly every single question were within 5 degrees of each other. I spent no time on this and it showed, though I wonder how much I possibly could've improved. I'm positive it was this section that dropped me from the 23 range.
Hole Punch - LOS. The size of the holes varied from problem to problem, but it wasn't a huge hindrance. I had several half-folds, but with LOS, they posed no problem.
Cube Counting - I don't think any of mine exceeded 15 total cubes. During the run-up to the test, I would count the total number of cubes before starting my tally as a built-in check. I dropped this because I wasted a lot of time having to re-tally if the numbers didn't match. It wasn't worth it because missing a cube was a rare occurrence. Trust yourself and move on.
Pattern Folding - The majority of the ones I saw were folding related rather than feature matching. Like keyholes, I devoted a lot of non-studying hours just visualizing. I cut out several common shapes and randomly shaded various sides. I'd then fold them in my head, orienting them at every possible angle, until I could do it quickly. If stumped, I'd take my cut-out and make the fold, study it, then try again. It takes some time, but you'll get it with practice.
Summary - If I were to do it over again, I'd invest in the other resources that people use like Achiever. CDP was adequate and faithful in its level of difficulty, but having a greater challenge would've been beneficial. It probably would've improved my speed, the lack of which was my downfall.
Bio:
I split my time between Kaplan and Cliffs AP Bio. Cliffs had way more detail than what was required, but it also had plenty of info that Kaplan didn't touch. However, Kaplan was great at hitting on topics that didn't seem all that important, but were likely to appear on the DAT. For example, Kaplan loves homologous structures and that actually appeared on my test. Also, I'd taken both Anatomy and Physio and it was immensely helpful. Not in terms of the questions I encountered, but in giving me a broader base when going through all the material. My test also asked nothing about plants nor classifications.
GChem:
Pretty much exactly like the Kaplan problem sets, except with round, easily calculated numbers. One of my biggest fears going into the test was not having a calculator as a crutch, but the terror proved unfounded. Just be sure you know how to estimate pHs from Kas. There was a Hess' Law problem where none of the numbers made sense. Aside from that, I understood every question. I'm sure I dropped a few points from careless errors.
Ochem:
Honestly, my score here shocked me. I breezed through this section. I wouldn't have been surprised if I'd been presented with a perfect score. The questions were waaaaaay easier than Destroyer. Don't bother looking over the roadmaps. I could've skipped Destroyer entirely (nothing crazy like acetoacetic ester formation, that's for sure), memorized all the reactions in Kaplan, and been okay. Where I went wrong is that I probably spent a bit too much time on memorizing every single reaction (AND mechanism), and should've focused a bit more on some of the more basic conceptual stuff. I probably mis-applied some of what I learned, hence the disconnect between the score I expected and what I actually got. I strongly recommend reapportioning time away from learning reactions towards other content (translating between various types of projections, drawing sugars, spec values and the difference between coupled and uncoupled spin).
RC:
I had two science passages and one non-science passage. Considering my past life as a liberal arts guy and a writer, I spent zero prep on this. I completed the section with 15+ minutes to spare. Even then, there were a few questions I struggled to answer. In my opinion, several of them were just poorly written and had answers with varying degrees of being correct. The trick was to identify the MOST correct one. This bothered me because it was very subjective and what one person interprets may be completely different from the next person -- and neither one of them would be wrong.
Kaplan's strategy is to outline the passage and to note the primary idea from each paragraph. I can see how some may gain from this, but I found it to be tedious. Mapping forced me to consider the notes I wanted to make per paragraph, rather than focusing on the content and integrating the entire passage as a coherent whole. I dropped this approach prior to the test and just read the passages straight-up. If you're confident with RC and you're mapping, try forsaking that method and things may get easier.
Also, it sounds obvious, but the way the question itself is asked can provide hints. For example, I had one problem that asked for the percentage of the population with a disease (1%), a number which is explicitly given. A sentence followed stating, "A higher percentage of people suffer to a lesser extent.." The question was worded along the lines of, "APPXORIMATELY how many people........", which made the tempting answer of 1% unlikely. Instead of jumping straight into SaD (seek and destroy), try to dig in and figure out the purpose of the question and why it's worded the way it's worded. That's the best I can explain it.
QR:
The calculator sucks, plain and simple. Mine was super laggy. I nearly made an error on one question due to my inputs not registering. If your calculator is as bad as mine, remember to observe each digit appearing on screen before clicking again.
The section, again, was much easier than Destroyer. There weren't any intricate chance/probability problems of any sort. If you do well on Destroyer, you'll crush this section. Don't even bother with tests 11 and 12 in Destroyer (2011). They serve no purpose other than to shatter your soul. The only question that was completely novel to me was one on amplitude (comparing sin(x) to sin(2x+1)). There were a few trick questions, one of which I caught right when time expired and I wasn't able to change: 24 numbered students per row, what's the number of the 3rd student in the 5th row? The quick reaction is (5x24)+3, instead of the correct (4x24)+3. For QR, interpreting the questions correctly is half the battle. The calculations and concepts themselves are simple.
Conclusion:
In hindsight, I overstudied a bit. For practice problems that stumped me, I spent a lot of time researching why stuff happened and branching out into related topics. Instead of drilling so deeply into all the minutiae I encountered, I would've been better served investing in all the other materials (Topscore, Achiever, Chad, Bootcamp, etc.). that people use and simulating the real test instead. I actually re-scheduled my original date and pushed it back two weeks. Based on how poorly I was doing on a multitude of Kaplan problem sets and on my depressing battle with Destroyer, I had little confidence going in. Believe it or not, the real thing really is easier. The ADA does a fantastic job of testing your understanding of the material, and not trying to trick you with trap answers. The "exception" type problems were extremely rare.
There are plenty of brilliant geniuses here who put in the work and blow the DAT out of the water. I'm here to tell you that you can be completely average and still rock it. I've never been good at retaining info and it takes me longer than it should to grasp concepts. There was more than one occasion where going through Destroyer for the fourth time, I'd encounter a problem from the previous day that I'd not only answer incorrectly, I'd literally have no recollection of having ever seen it in my life. As I suggested above, I tried to compensate for my weaknesses by studying over an extended period of time, giving me a longer window to process and get comfortable with the material. The DAT covers a lot, but it's not the monster it's made out to be. If you put in the time and study your ass off, you are absolutely guaranteed to do well.
Also, if you're a nontraditional candidate from a non-science background and you're thinking about going back to school to complete your science pre-reqs, there's hope. You're just as capable as any "science" person and there's nothing inherently different about your brain. Don't be intimidated. Doing well is not an impossible feat if you're serious and determined to succeed.
Cheers and best of luck!
Update: Accepted to multiple schools and will be starting in 2014!
Last edited:
