- Joined
- Jul 22, 2010
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 4
Scores:
PA: 25 (99.0)
QR: 26 (99.6)
RC: 22 (84.4)
Bio: 24 (98.9)
GC: 23 (95.4)
Orgo: 27 (98.7)
TS: 25 (99.5)
AA: 24 (99.6)
PA/QR/RC/Bio/GC/Orgo/TS/AA:
An x indicates I didn't do it; ADA 2009 estimated using the ADA 2007 conversion chart, there isn't one for ADA 2009.
ADA 2007: 25/x/21/24/x/x/?/?
ADA 2009: 25/x/x/29/30/21/?/?
Top Score 1: 22/29/29/24/21/23/22/25
Top Score 2: 23/24/22/22/23/25/23/23
Top Score 3: 24/25/21/21/25/21/22/23
I also had (ahem) "access" to 6 of the full-length Kaplan test questions but couldn't take them under simulated conditions. I only did the science sections and probably scored 23-25 Total Science on all of them. More on Kaplan below.
Destroyer Bio: Not bad I guess, but if you're memorizing all 500-some problems and banking on that to do well in this section, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Nothing replaces doing well in bio courses (especially upper-div ones) for this section.
Destroyer GC & Orgo (2 runs): Terrific.
Destroyer GC: 85-90% 1st run, almost 100% 2nd run
Destroyer Orgo: 80-85% 1st run, probably like 95% 2nd run
Math Destroyer: Terrific. The actual test is easier than Math Destroyer.
3 runs, last run's average = 24.
DATQVault:
Quite good, I liked the layout, I liked the questions. I paid for a $20 sub.
Crack DAT Reading:
Did 9/10 tests, averaged 22 & scored 22 on the real thing. I've bashed CDR before because when I compared it to ADA 2009 RC, it was nothing like it; but actually, it's quite representative of the real thing. ADA 2009 RC is much, much more difficult.
Crack DAT PAT:
Did 10/10 tests, averaged 25 & scored 25 on the real thing. I think it's okay but a little over-rated. More on that below.
The actual test:
Bio: I was actually pretty impressed with some of the questions they had on here. There was one in particular that was very tricky. More than a couple required upper-div bio knowledge imo, but most were very straight-forward. I took 30 minutes on this section, which caused me a lot of panic heading into GC (slowest section).
GC: Disappointed in this section. GC is my best subject and I had very little problems with Destroyer. A large majority of the questions I missed in my practice tests were due to careless mistakes rather than lack of knowledge. I'm guessing careless mistakes factored into my score as well. To be honest, I expected a 30 in this section because I didn't miss any in the 2009 ADA, but questions on my test were so much tougher than the ADA 2009 GC section and I'm sure I made bone-headed mistakes. However, GC on the real test is tough. YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO DO MANY INTRICATE CALCULATIONS. DO DESTROYER GC WITHOUT A CALCULATOR. The math in this section was tougher than QR (100% serious). I had read many breakdowns in the past stating that equations are set up for you, and while that is true for some problems, I had 2 problems where we had to do a lot of complex long division to achieve the correct answer. Destroyer GC is very representative of this section.
Orgo: Very simple and straightforward, Destroyer is very good for this section as well, but problems were much easier. There was maybe 1 tricky question I think. Chad's + Destroyer = good combo. ADA 2009 is more difficult.
PAT: Apparently, ADA fixed the crappy PAT images that people complained about in the past. It looks just like CDP now (computer-generated lines instead of scanned and uploaded), so don't worry about getting fuzzy images or anything. CDP's keyholes + pattern folding are just not that great imo. All other sections are representative (except you can't count lines as much as you can on TFE during the real test). For keyholes, the best sources are: Kaplan online tests, ADA 2007, ADA 2009, & Top Score. I feel those were the most representative. Ditto for pattern folding (same 4 sources). CDP's pattern folding emphasizes knowing how to place lines and dots (like those dice questions). In reality, there are many more q's where you need to fold patterns that don't have markings on them.
RC: CDR = awesome. I got the "dreaded" ethic passage, but I thought that one was incredibly easy. S&D is the best method for this section. Here's something funny: in practicing with CDR, I had always read the passage first (rather slowly, trying to understand everything) before answering questions. On the actual test, I very quickly realized that after the first passage, S&D is the best method. I probably missed the most questions on the first passage where I didn't S&D. It's pretty ridiculous because if the passages were on the level of ADA 2009 (which I took to be most representative of the real thing), I'm pretty sure reading first would have been a better method (hence, that's how I practiced). So for those of you reading this, I took a bullet for you guys. Do S&D.
QR: Math Destroyer is so, so, so incredibly good for this section. If you master Math Destroyer, you'll be fine. Actual test = easier as well. I had 2 problems where the concepts didn't show up anywhere in Math Destroyer though, but they weren't too tough. It is very easy to be careless in this section, so if you're good at math, go thru this section slowly and carefully. I know for some of you it's tough to even finish on time, so you have to practice and practice.
Reviews of other material:
Chad's: Great. Won't say more because everyone knows this already.
Top Score: Tougher than the actual DAT I think, it tests on some pretty obscure stuff in GC & OC. But I liked it very much. Top Score RC is a bit too easy. I got a 29 on the first RC test and would have gotten higher on the 2nd and 3rd ones if I hadn't pooped out. Good practice for S&D though I guess.
Cliffs: Good for general review I suppose, but insufficient if you want a higher score.
KBB: Terrible, stay away.
Schaums: Great, very comprehensive, get this.
Campbells: The ultimate source, get this.
Kaplan Online Tests: GC & Orgo were pretty good, but Bio was actually terrible. They just recycled the same concepts over and over in all 6 of their tests, so the scope is very limited. I loved its TFE, Keyholes, and Pattern folding though, better than CDP in those 3 sections.
Final thoughts:
I know some of you are going to take this the wrong way, but hey, I posted this long and helpful breakdown so I'm going to say it anyways. I'm a little disappointed in my score. I aimed for a 25, and on a better day I think I would have gotten it. Especially annoyed at GC because I think I understand almost all of its concepts very well, but I suppose it's my own fault. Too many careless mistakes that I always made even during practice tests, should have cleaned up in that area before the real thing. What are you gonna do? 🙄
I'm applying to 13 schools. I have a 3.95 BCP GPA and a 3.93 Cumulative GPA, so the academic part of my application is set. My EC's are probably pretty weak though in comparison. My dream school = UCLA, so fingers crossed for that.
Anyways, if you have questions, ask away.
Edit:
Wanted to add some more stuff about PAT.
Keyholes: I was wondering about this until yesterday even, but now that I've taken the test, I know the answer. Absolute size does not matter, only proportions do.
TFE: Line-counting will only get you so far. They are correct when they say "Visualize!"
Angles: It's not as hit-and-miss as people say. You can do well on this if you practice. I used a lot of methods for this section. For smaller, acute angles, I like corndog's method of looking close to the vertex and moving your eyes back and forth to get a sense of the width at the tip. For larger acute angles, I used the hill method sometimes as well as corndog's method. For obtuse angles, I like drawing an imaginary line and looking at the supplementary angle to compare. Angles are key to a high PAT score. It may seem impossible the first go, but if you keep practicing, you'll get there. Real DAT = a little easier than CDP. I probably practiced the most for this section.
Hole Punch: Don't use the grid method. It's a complete waste of time imo, even if you've drawn them out before you begin. I always used my fingers on the table to represent the dots, lol. If you do this, it probably will shave your time drastically. I used the grid method initially and it just took me forever (maybe I just suck at drawing dots, lol). With my fingers method, I blew thru these sections in about 3 mins each time. Took longer on the real DAT though because I checked it after every time. Real DAT = a little easier than CDP for this section.
Pattern Folding: This & Hole punch are probably my best sections. I think I've missed 1 pattern folding question in the last like 200 I've done, lol. 😛 My advice: DO NOT fold it. It's so much easier working in 2D than 3D. Move pieces around in your head in 2D rather than folding it in 3D. That's some GREAT advice right there for this section.
PA: 25 (99.0)
QR: 26 (99.6)
RC: 22 (84.4)
Bio: 24 (98.9)
GC: 23 (95.4)
Orgo: 27 (98.7)
TS: 25 (99.5)
AA: 24 (99.6)
PA/QR/RC/Bio/GC/Orgo/TS/AA:
An x indicates I didn't do it; ADA 2009 estimated using the ADA 2007 conversion chart, there isn't one for ADA 2009.
ADA 2007: 25/x/21/24/x/x/?/?
ADA 2009: 25/x/x/29/30/21/?/?
Top Score 1: 22/29/29/24/21/23/22/25
Top Score 2: 23/24/22/22/23/25/23/23
Top Score 3: 24/25/21/21/25/21/22/23
I also had (ahem) "access" to 6 of the full-length Kaplan test questions but couldn't take them under simulated conditions. I only did the science sections and probably scored 23-25 Total Science on all of them. More on Kaplan below.
Destroyer Bio: Not bad I guess, but if you're memorizing all 500-some problems and banking on that to do well in this section, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Nothing replaces doing well in bio courses (especially upper-div ones) for this section.
Destroyer GC & Orgo (2 runs): Terrific.
Destroyer GC: 85-90% 1st run, almost 100% 2nd run
Destroyer Orgo: 80-85% 1st run, probably like 95% 2nd run
Math Destroyer: Terrific. The actual test is easier than Math Destroyer.
3 runs, last run's average = 24.
DATQVault:
Quite good, I liked the layout, I liked the questions. I paid for a $20 sub.
Crack DAT Reading:
Did 9/10 tests, averaged 22 & scored 22 on the real thing. I've bashed CDR before because when I compared it to ADA 2009 RC, it was nothing like it; but actually, it's quite representative of the real thing. ADA 2009 RC is much, much more difficult.
Crack DAT PAT:
Did 10/10 tests, averaged 25 & scored 25 on the real thing. I think it's okay but a little over-rated. More on that below.
The actual test:
Bio: I was actually pretty impressed with some of the questions they had on here. There was one in particular that was very tricky. More than a couple required upper-div bio knowledge imo, but most were very straight-forward. I took 30 minutes on this section, which caused me a lot of panic heading into GC (slowest section).
GC: Disappointed in this section. GC is my best subject and I had very little problems with Destroyer. A large majority of the questions I missed in my practice tests were due to careless mistakes rather than lack of knowledge. I'm guessing careless mistakes factored into my score as well. To be honest, I expected a 30 in this section because I didn't miss any in the 2009 ADA, but questions on my test were so much tougher than the ADA 2009 GC section and I'm sure I made bone-headed mistakes. However, GC on the real test is tough. YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED TO DO MANY INTRICATE CALCULATIONS. DO DESTROYER GC WITHOUT A CALCULATOR. The math in this section was tougher than QR (100% serious). I had read many breakdowns in the past stating that equations are set up for you, and while that is true for some problems, I had 2 problems where we had to do a lot of complex long division to achieve the correct answer. Destroyer GC is very representative of this section.
Orgo: Very simple and straightforward, Destroyer is very good for this section as well, but problems were much easier. There was maybe 1 tricky question I think. Chad's + Destroyer = good combo. ADA 2009 is more difficult.
PAT: Apparently, ADA fixed the crappy PAT images that people complained about in the past. It looks just like CDP now (computer-generated lines instead of scanned and uploaded), so don't worry about getting fuzzy images or anything. CDP's keyholes + pattern folding are just not that great imo. All other sections are representative (except you can't count lines as much as you can on TFE during the real test). For keyholes, the best sources are: Kaplan online tests, ADA 2007, ADA 2009, & Top Score. I feel those were the most representative. Ditto for pattern folding (same 4 sources). CDP's pattern folding emphasizes knowing how to place lines and dots (like those dice questions). In reality, there are many more q's where you need to fold patterns that don't have markings on them.
RC: CDR = awesome. I got the "dreaded" ethic passage, but I thought that one was incredibly easy. S&D is the best method for this section. Here's something funny: in practicing with CDR, I had always read the passage first (rather slowly, trying to understand everything) before answering questions. On the actual test, I very quickly realized that after the first passage, S&D is the best method. I probably missed the most questions on the first passage where I didn't S&D. It's pretty ridiculous because if the passages were on the level of ADA 2009 (which I took to be most representative of the real thing), I'm pretty sure reading first would have been a better method (hence, that's how I practiced). So for those of you reading this, I took a bullet for you guys. Do S&D.
QR: Math Destroyer is so, so, so incredibly good for this section. If you master Math Destroyer, you'll be fine. Actual test = easier as well. I had 2 problems where the concepts didn't show up anywhere in Math Destroyer though, but they weren't too tough. It is very easy to be careless in this section, so if you're good at math, go thru this section slowly and carefully. I know for some of you it's tough to even finish on time, so you have to practice and practice.
Reviews of other material:
Chad's: Great. Won't say more because everyone knows this already.
Top Score: Tougher than the actual DAT I think, it tests on some pretty obscure stuff in GC & OC. But I liked it very much. Top Score RC is a bit too easy. I got a 29 on the first RC test and would have gotten higher on the 2nd and 3rd ones if I hadn't pooped out. Good practice for S&D though I guess.
Cliffs: Good for general review I suppose, but insufficient if you want a higher score.
KBB: Terrible, stay away.
Schaums: Great, very comprehensive, get this.
Campbells: The ultimate source, get this.
Kaplan Online Tests: GC & Orgo were pretty good, but Bio was actually terrible. They just recycled the same concepts over and over in all 6 of their tests, so the scope is very limited. I loved its TFE, Keyholes, and Pattern folding though, better than CDP in those 3 sections.
Final thoughts:
I know some of you are going to take this the wrong way, but hey, I posted this long and helpful breakdown so I'm going to say it anyways. I'm a little disappointed in my score. I aimed for a 25, and on a better day I think I would have gotten it. Especially annoyed at GC because I think I understand almost all of its concepts very well, but I suppose it's my own fault. Too many careless mistakes that I always made even during practice tests, should have cleaned up in that area before the real thing. What are you gonna do? 🙄
I'm applying to 13 schools. I have a 3.95 BCP GPA and a 3.93 Cumulative GPA, so the academic part of my application is set. My EC's are probably pretty weak though in comparison. My dream school = UCLA, so fingers crossed for that.
Anyways, if you have questions, ask away.
Edit:
Wanted to add some more stuff about PAT.
Keyholes: I was wondering about this until yesterday even, but now that I've taken the test, I know the answer. Absolute size does not matter, only proportions do.
TFE: Line-counting will only get you so far. They are correct when they say "Visualize!"
Angles: It's not as hit-and-miss as people say. You can do well on this if you practice. I used a lot of methods for this section. For smaller, acute angles, I like corndog's method of looking close to the vertex and moving your eyes back and forth to get a sense of the width at the tip. For larger acute angles, I used the hill method sometimes as well as corndog's method. For obtuse angles, I like drawing an imaginary line and looking at the supplementary angle to compare. Angles are key to a high PAT score. It may seem impossible the first go, but if you keep practicing, you'll get there. Real DAT = a little easier than CDP. I probably practiced the most for this section.
Hole Punch: Don't use the grid method. It's a complete waste of time imo, even if you've drawn them out before you begin. I always used my fingers on the table to represent the dots, lol. If you do this, it probably will shave your time drastically. I used the grid method initially and it just took me forever (maybe I just suck at drawing dots, lol). With my fingers method, I blew thru these sections in about 3 mins each time. Took longer on the real DAT though because I checked it after every time. Real DAT = a little easier than CDP for this section.
Pattern Folding: This & Hole punch are probably my best sections. I think I've missed 1 pattern folding question in the last like 200 I've done, lol. 😛 My advice: DO NOT fold it. It's so much easier working in 2D than 3D. Move pieces around in your head in 2D rather than folding it in 3D. That's some GREAT advice right there for this section.
Last edited:
