<p>"Am i screwed if i am getting low-mid 50s on the REA practice tests?"</p>
<p>Can someone answer this for me and david please?</p>
<p>no. i get that. ull get a 5. no worries.</p>
<p>So the books are more lenient or is the curve much lower?</p>
<p>GOOD LUCK ELCOMMANDO! And thanks for bringing back my question. I guess we're in the same boat. I think we'll be OK...</p>
<p>I think REA's tests are DIFFERENT from the real tests, so it is difficult to translate a score from REA into something useful.</p>
<p>I just took the 1996 mc test, and I think princeton review's tests are more accurate, and are just about as difficult. For comparisons, while I got a raw of 69, 67 adjusted, on PR's, I scored a 70 raw, 68 adjusted, on the real test</p>
<p>what about Barron's practice tests??</p>
<p>they are HARD.</p>
<p>i got like 45~48 ish , out of 80...danggg</p>
<p>is the practice test for Barrons accurately match the real thing?
(i kno barrons SAT II stuff is hard, but i dono about AP)</p>
<p>thanks david gl to you too. I was wondering about that because my favorite subject is history and I read the REA book fully one time and still...only got 50/80 for the APUSH and 58/95 for SAT II US. I thought REA was more accurate..or is it just more accurate than Barrons?</p>