- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 4,591
- Dental Student
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So this thing is finally over. I'm kinda tired after getting up at 4 and the 3 hours of driving, so I'll add the breakdown later. But I was hoping for some thoughts on where I stand. Applying to 15 schools.
PA - 25
QR - 18
RC - 19
BIO - 20
GCHEM - 23
OCHEM - 20
TS - 21
AA - 20
cGPA: 3.21
sGPA: 3.13
bcpGPA 3.08
Ok so here is the breakdown. With my low GPA I knew I had to do well on this exam and had something to prove. As for my scores, I thought I was going to do better than this based on topscore, 2007, 2009 practice exams. As for some history, I was planning on taking the exam at the end of winter break but decided against this because I just wasn't ready.
Bio: (Barron's, Cliffs, Qvault, Khan, KBB) I have a very weak background in bio, which is why I got my butt kicked freshman year with a C+ and B- so this section scared me into reading Barron's, KBB and cliffs religiously over the past 4-5 months. As everyone says Barron's is easy to read and awesome post chapter quizzes. Cliffs is a little bit more detailed, but still very good. The real deal felt like I was taking another 2007 or 2009 section (more like 2007). I didn't have anything I didn't recognize, but trying to recall it was the problem. Overall, not bad and pretty basic questions.
Gen Chem: (Destroyer, Chad's) I used Chad first, took notes religiously, and the quizzes are dynamite almost identical to the questions on the real deal. Destroyer was good to reinforce the concepts and was very useful. The thing about the real test is the calculations are setup like on the 2007, 2009, not like topscore. The difficulty is on par with the 2007 and 2009, topscore as well minus the calc.
Ochem: (Destroyer, Chad) I felt I destroyed this section but apparently not. Very basic synthesis problems (AES, Aldol, Claisen condensation, acid/base) which were very similar to Chad's quizzes.
PAT: (CAD, LEGOS, practice exams) I have to say this section was much much harder than anything available on the practice exams. I think I was getting 23-34 on topscore, 28 on the 2009, and 25 on the 2007. I believe someone was pissed off when designing this thing or they hired an origami master. Some of this problems were making my eyes twitch and forehead to throb. I just read a thread on here about angle secrets and props to that person because they helped me destroy the angles, which they all looked the same on about 4-5 of the questions. I heard a lot about crack PAT but I wasn't about to spend another bill on that. And for the legos, huge fan (collect Star Wars LEGOS) and pretty sure this helped in some way. My cousin also is an engineer and hooked me up with a version of Solidworks to play with and this probably was the most significant. Overall, angles suck and so do the hole punch.
CR: (topscore, 2007, 2009, Kaplan) This sucked, period. I finally know what they mean by tone/inference. My passages were about prions, fiberoptic cable, and something else…they are all blending together. The shortest was 11 paragraphs and the longest was 19. I would say of the 50 I had about 15-20 tone/inference like is the top statement true, is the bottom statement true, neither, both…The statement is right, but reasoning is wrong. Search destroy worked well for the others, but I basically said F-it with the others. I honestly don't know what to say, because the sources I used were not representative of this section.
QR: (Math destroyer, kbb) I thought I could do well in this section so I invested a lot of time into learning the tricks from the destroyer. I'm sure my score would have been higher but I had to randomly guess on the last 5 because I ran out of time. Basically destroyer, kbb, and the practice exams are representative of this section.
Overall, I thought I would have received a higher score due to the amount of time I spent studying. I think the nerves got to me, as I usually get pretty nervous for exams. Plus the added pressing of knowing I had to do well really didn't help the cause. I feel if I had to retake I would do much better.
PA - 25
QR - 18
RC - 19
BIO - 20
GCHEM - 23
OCHEM - 20
TS - 21
AA - 20
cGPA: 3.21
sGPA: 3.13
bcpGPA 3.08
Ok so here is the breakdown. With my low GPA I knew I had to do well on this exam and had something to prove. As for my scores, I thought I was going to do better than this based on topscore, 2007, 2009 practice exams. As for some history, I was planning on taking the exam at the end of winter break but decided against this because I just wasn't ready.
Bio: (Barron's, Cliffs, Qvault, Khan, KBB) I have a very weak background in bio, which is why I got my butt kicked freshman year with a C+ and B- so this section scared me into reading Barron's, KBB and cliffs religiously over the past 4-5 months. As everyone says Barron's is easy to read and awesome post chapter quizzes. Cliffs is a little bit more detailed, but still very good. The real deal felt like I was taking another 2007 or 2009 section (more like 2007). I didn't have anything I didn't recognize, but trying to recall it was the problem. Overall, not bad and pretty basic questions.
Gen Chem: (Destroyer, Chad's) I used Chad first, took notes religiously, and the quizzes are dynamite almost identical to the questions on the real deal. Destroyer was good to reinforce the concepts and was very useful. The thing about the real test is the calculations are setup like on the 2007, 2009, not like topscore. The difficulty is on par with the 2007 and 2009, topscore as well minus the calc.
Ochem: (Destroyer, Chad) I felt I destroyed this section but apparently not. Very basic synthesis problems (AES, Aldol, Claisen condensation, acid/base) which were very similar to Chad's quizzes.
PAT: (CAD, LEGOS, practice exams) I have to say this section was much much harder than anything available on the practice exams. I think I was getting 23-34 on topscore, 28 on the 2009, and 25 on the 2007. I believe someone was pissed off when designing this thing or they hired an origami master. Some of this problems were making my eyes twitch and forehead to throb. I just read a thread on here about angle secrets and props to that person because they helped me destroy the angles, which they all looked the same on about 4-5 of the questions. I heard a lot about crack PAT but I wasn't about to spend another bill on that. And for the legos, huge fan (collect Star Wars LEGOS) and pretty sure this helped in some way. My cousin also is an engineer and hooked me up with a version of Solidworks to play with and this probably was the most significant. Overall, angles suck and so do the hole punch.
CR: (topscore, 2007, 2009, Kaplan) This sucked, period. I finally know what they mean by tone/inference. My passages were about prions, fiberoptic cable, and something else…they are all blending together. The shortest was 11 paragraphs and the longest was 19. I would say of the 50 I had about 15-20 tone/inference like is the top statement true, is the bottom statement true, neither, both…The statement is right, but reasoning is wrong. Search destroy worked well for the others, but I basically said F-it with the others. I honestly don't know what to say, because the sources I used were not representative of this section.
QR: (Math destroyer, kbb) I thought I could do well in this section so I invested a lot of time into learning the tricks from the destroyer. I'm sure my score would have been higher but I had to randomly guess on the last 5 because I ran out of time. Basically destroyer, kbb, and the practice exams are representative of this section.
Overall, I thought I would have received a higher score due to the amount of time I spent studying. I think the nerves got to me, as I usually get pretty nervous for exams. Plus the added pressing of knowing I had to do well really didn't help the cause. I feel if I had to retake I would do much better.
Last edited:
