- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 0
Sup All
too lazy to do this untill now. Needed a break
My scores
PAT 19
QR 17
RC 21
Bio 20
GC 25
OC 24
TS 23
AA 21
GPA 3.67
sGPA 3.73
research, some shadowing, average ECs
what I used
-Kaplan
-Cliffs
-Destroyer
-MCAT Exam Krackers bio
Right so the DAT was one of the oddest tests I have ever taken.
As alot of people have said bio was extremely random. Most of the questions were easy and then a few of them were out of nowhere. I felt like I really had the material I reviewed down as far as bio is concerned. Most of the questions I must have gotten wrong I had not even seen in my numerous bio review sources. i feel like being a bio major would heavily favor someone in this section since they have a much greater chance of knowing those few little tid bits of information that make all the difference score wise from doing a lab or studying for a specific test.
Chem
Chem was a complete joke for the most part. I was actually pissed off how much work I had done on it, which was still nothing compared to bio. One of the questions literally asked me what the molar mass of a given compound was. I probably made a couple stupid mistakes here which are always my downfall. Definitely did not feel that being a Chem major was responsible for my score since the level was extremely basic gen chem. Destroyer was good practice, but completely excessive.
Orgo
Orgo has a similar feel to bio. Most the questions were something you could get if you had done only a minimal amount of studying and then a few would just be thrown in to catch you off. For instance i had a pretty specific IR graph that did not have the typical alcohol or keto peaks that all IR questions seem to have. My recommendation is to really spend the time needed to know you IR frequencies and to be familiar with approximate chemical shifts in H NMR and C NMR, do not right some of the somewhat obscure groups off as too detailed and unecessary as I did.
At the end of ORGO I had 16 minutes left!!!!
The end result was that i felt my science section was very odd and random, while overall quite easy. It was frustrating since I feel like given a different section my score could have come out completely differently (for good or bab), not that I am complaining about what I got. I dont like how on the dat missing one or two questions can be the difference between 25-and 30 but the difference between 15-20 is many more questions. Seems to me that it would be better for bio atleast to make the questions overall more difficult in order to test a wider range of material while making the curve more foregiving. Bio really felt like a luck of the draw.
PAT
19
Pretty disappointed about this.
I was getting 21s, 23s, and even a 26 on CDP. I am going to go against what everyone says and say that CDP was not spot on for me. Here is why.
First off, and what i consider is a BLARING mistake, a bunch of the sections on the real PAT have ABCD and E as answer choices. As far as I am aware my CDP tests had only ABCD. This was kind of a difference I was not expecting to see between a source that supposed to be so similar to the real test. Threw me off a little and made process of elimnation for pattern folding harder.
Second CDP really REALLY over emphasizes shape matching. On the real PAT many more of the questions came down to correct possible shapes which you had to then choose between based off of sizing or thickness in a certain area. CDP trained me to find the correct shape and move on. On the real test i would find a couple that would work and then have to waste time trying to decide which shape was more proportionate. For instance i had a pattern fold that looked like a 3d plus sign. Multiple answers were 3d plus signs, but each varied minimally by the thickeness of the sign or the width of the bars in the cross.
Third hole punches on the real test are drawn very differently than on CDP. In CDP the hole occupies most of its spot in the coordinate grid. On the real PAT the hole occupies about half of the space. This makes it look like the grid could be 5x5 instead of 4x4 and I had to be careful to position the holes using tic tac toe method correctly.
Finally the resolution on TFE was not ideal, but that cant really be helped.
Ill take my 19, but I really feel like i could have done better in this area if I had not relied so much on CDP. Should have bought topscore or something else just for PAT. I should have done more kaplan which I feel is better and harder for keyholes and TFE then CDP. KAPLAN angles and hole punches are a complete joke though.
Reading Comprehension
RC was pretty much as expected. Had two pretty easy passages and one hard passage which went in great detail into the anatomy of the spinal cord. I encountered alot of problems that were two statements and you had to say whether they were true/false and related or not related. Had not seen them in my kaplan practices so just be aware they are out there. I usually dont map, but I really should have for my anatomy passage. So i would recommend if you start reading a passage that is seemingly technical map it. I only managed to do okay because I did my first passage in 15mins so I had some time to save my neck with.
Math
Was really only looking to survive this section. Which i feel like I did. Speed is really key as they say. One thing I did notice though is that the numbers were not as clean as I had seen in my review materials. the problems came down to alot of good estimation skills. I am happy i survived this section, since I know how to do the problems but get really let down by my mental math. Wish we had a calculator so that we could demostrate our ability to conceptually solve the problem not just handle the mental math. On a different note there was also some somewhat nasty trig, which I skipped for time purposes.
Conclusion
Over all i left the DAT really surprised and confused at what it was but happy, except for my PAT score. I found that it was a really odd feeling test overall that NONE of my review material really predicted well. Some surprises were good like having 16 minutes left on natural sciences, but some surprises were bad, like the way the PAT was sort of presented. If i had to do it again i would focus a lot more on math since I feel like that is really an area where practice can pay off. Other than that I would pretty much do the same thing since even though the review sources werent always spot on with the sciences its pretty much all we have so you have no choice. Make sure to review from a wide range of materials since each company has their idea of what the test is and they could very well be wrong.
Anway those are my thoughts, take it or leave it.
I am done!!!
If you would like me to elaborate about something I have said ask and I will try to get around to it.
On a final note anyone else out there walk out feeling like they had taken the oddest test ever?
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!!!!
too lazy to do this untill now. Needed a break
My scores
PAT 19
QR 17
RC 21
Bio 20
GC 25
OC 24
TS 23
AA 21
GPA 3.67
sGPA 3.73
research, some shadowing, average ECs
what I used
-Kaplan
-Cliffs
-Destroyer
-MCAT Exam Krackers bio
Right so the DAT was one of the oddest tests I have ever taken.
As alot of people have said bio was extremely random. Most of the questions were easy and then a few of them were out of nowhere. I felt like I really had the material I reviewed down as far as bio is concerned. Most of the questions I must have gotten wrong I had not even seen in my numerous bio review sources. i feel like being a bio major would heavily favor someone in this section since they have a much greater chance of knowing those few little tid bits of information that make all the difference score wise from doing a lab or studying for a specific test.
Chem
Chem was a complete joke for the most part. I was actually pissed off how much work I had done on it, which was still nothing compared to bio. One of the questions literally asked me what the molar mass of a given compound was. I probably made a couple stupid mistakes here which are always my downfall. Definitely did not feel that being a Chem major was responsible for my score since the level was extremely basic gen chem. Destroyer was good practice, but completely excessive.
Orgo
Orgo has a similar feel to bio. Most the questions were something you could get if you had done only a minimal amount of studying and then a few would just be thrown in to catch you off. For instance i had a pretty specific IR graph that did not have the typical alcohol or keto peaks that all IR questions seem to have. My recommendation is to really spend the time needed to know you IR frequencies and to be familiar with approximate chemical shifts in H NMR and C NMR, do not right some of the somewhat obscure groups off as too detailed and unecessary as I did.
At the end of ORGO I had 16 minutes left!!!!
The end result was that i felt my science section was very odd and random, while overall quite easy. It was frustrating since I feel like given a different section my score could have come out completely differently (for good or bab), not that I am complaining about what I got. I dont like how on the dat missing one or two questions can be the difference between 25-and 30 but the difference between 15-20 is many more questions. Seems to me that it would be better for bio atleast to make the questions overall more difficult in order to test a wider range of material while making the curve more foregiving. Bio really felt like a luck of the draw.
PAT
19
Pretty disappointed about this.
I was getting 21s, 23s, and even a 26 on CDP. I am going to go against what everyone says and say that CDP was not spot on for me. Here is why.
First off, and what i consider is a BLARING mistake, a bunch of the sections on the real PAT have ABCD and E as answer choices. As far as I am aware my CDP tests had only ABCD. This was kind of a difference I was not expecting to see between a source that supposed to be so similar to the real test. Threw me off a little and made process of elimnation for pattern folding harder.
Second CDP really REALLY over emphasizes shape matching. On the real PAT many more of the questions came down to correct possible shapes which you had to then choose between based off of sizing or thickness in a certain area. CDP trained me to find the correct shape and move on. On the real test i would find a couple that would work and then have to waste time trying to decide which shape was more proportionate. For instance i had a pattern fold that looked like a 3d plus sign. Multiple answers were 3d plus signs, but each varied minimally by the thickeness of the sign or the width of the bars in the cross.
Third hole punches on the real test are drawn very differently than on CDP. In CDP the hole occupies most of its spot in the coordinate grid. On the real PAT the hole occupies about half of the space. This makes it look like the grid could be 5x5 instead of 4x4 and I had to be careful to position the holes using tic tac toe method correctly.
Finally the resolution on TFE was not ideal, but that cant really be helped
. Ill take my 19, but I really feel like i could have done better in this area if I had not relied so much on CDP. Should have bought topscore or something else just for PAT. I should have done more kaplan which I feel is better and harder for keyholes and TFE then CDP. KAPLAN angles and hole punches are a complete joke though.
Reading Comprehension
RC was pretty much as expected. Had two pretty easy passages and one hard passage which went in great detail into the anatomy of the spinal cord. I encountered alot of problems that were two statements and you had to say whether they were true/false and related or not related. Had not seen them in my kaplan practices so just be aware they are out there. I usually dont map, but I really should have for my anatomy passage. So i would recommend if you start reading a passage that is seemingly technical map it. I only managed to do okay because I did my first passage in 15mins so I had some time to save my neck with.
Math
Was really only looking to survive this section. Which i feel like I did. Speed is really key as they say. One thing I did notice though is that the numbers were not as clean as I had seen in my review materials. the problems came down to alot of good estimation skills. I am happy i survived this section, since I know how to do the problems but get really let down by my mental math. Wish we had a calculator so that we could demostrate our ability to conceptually solve the problem not just handle the mental math. On a different note there was also some somewhat nasty trig, which I skipped for time purposes.
Conclusion
Over all i left the DAT really surprised and confused at what it was but happy, except for my PAT score. I found that it was a really odd feeling test overall that NONE of my review material really predicted well. Some surprises were good like having 16 minutes left on natural sciences, but some surprises were bad, like the way the PAT was sort of presented. If i had to do it again i would focus a lot more on math since I feel like that is really an area where practice can pay off. Other than that I would pretty much do the same thing since even though the review sources werent always spot on with the sciences its pretty much all we have so you have no choice. Make sure to review from a wide range of materials since each company has their idea of what the test is and they could very well be wrong.
Anway those are my thoughts, take it or leave it.
I am done
!!!If you would like me to elaborate about something I have said ask and I will try to get around to it.
On a final note anyone else out there walk out feeling like they had taken the oddest test ever?
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!!!!
Last edited:
