<p>Hi. I am currently using Barron's SAT 2008 book for the writing practice.
For the writing sections, i ususally score around 700s on the BB. But on Barrrons, i scorea round 650s. It is natural?</p>
<p>Yeah, Barron's is much harder.</p>
<p>Are taking Barrons tests beneficial to improving ones score?</p>
<p>Yes, taking Barron's exams is beneficial to increasing one's score.</p>
<p>I would argue that it's more efficient to just use CB tests. There are so many CB tests floating around that it's best to just use them. Break up the tests into practice sets, take them whole, etc.</p>
<p>The only advantage I see in practicing with harder questions is that the real SAT seems "easier" in an artificial sense. This isn't because Barron's prepared you well, it's because Barron's was so hard that the SAT is a relief.</p>
<p>A better analogy would be training for a sprint race by doing marathons. Marathons will get you in shape, but they are NOT sprints and won't train you for them. But they will make running a sprint seem like cake because they're physically tougher. </p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>They might be, but time spent on Barron's tests is much better spent on official ones.</p>
<p>^ also, Ashraf Eassa did really well on the SAT's and he used barrons as one of his sources, so repeatedly discrediting non-CB books is misleading itself...</p>
<p>^ That's flawed logic. He's one person, and Barron's was ONE of his sources. It's better to use only BB tests. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Xiggi, whom many people go to for SAT advice, warns against using non BB tests.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. It most likely wasn't his sole practice test source. </p>
<p>You can get a great score any which way you want. But why put more time and effort into it than is necessary?</p>
<p>I think Barron's is useful because their tests are in the SAT style, except instead of having a bunch of easy, medium, and hard questions sprinkled throughout in CB style, it's mostly mediums and hards. It's good to have practice on these kinds of questions because, quite frankly, those are the ones people usually get wrong.</p>
<p>That said, don't use Barron's for score prediction, just use it to practice your general skill in math, reading, and writing. If you build up the general skill, that skill transfers anywhere -- whether it's CB SATs, Kaplan, Barron's, or hell, even on math problems in the real world!</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ That's flawed logic. He's one person, and Barron's was ONE of his sources. It's better to use only BB tests. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Xiggi, whom many people go to for SAT advice, warns against using non BB tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i did say barrons was one of his sources ;P</p>
<p>but i was just trying to say that sometimes, tests besides the one the BB offers actually does help ><</p>
<p>Exactly. So you can't credit his success to Barron's alone. He probably did CB tests, which are the only tests you should take.</p>
<p>^ i know, i know ><</p>
<p>but the fact that barrons contributed shows that holistically discrediting non CB books isn't an accurate thing to say. im not saying any of you said that non CB books are TOTALLY unwise to use, but instead suggested that BB tests are better (i agree on that..), but in case anyone has such an antagonistic view of non CB books, it's just to let them know that doing other prep isn't always a bad idea.</p>
<p>as someone else said, as long as you don't use it to judge your score..</p>
<p>I don't have anything against people who believe in/use non CB materials, but I've come to the personal conclusion that only CB tests are valid practice materials. Whatever you do is your decision.</p>
<p>yeah. i mean like, it doesn't hurt to take non CB tests, but if you want a real judgment of where your score lies, use the BB tests.</p>
<p>its sort of like preparing for SAT II's..people like using barrons for math II because it over prepares them..so sort of the same for SAT prep?..</p>
<p>I think a little differently when it comes to SAT II's and AP's. </p>
<p>For SAT II's, you might get only 1 practice test (or 3, still a small number, for the maths and history tests). Therefore, it may be justified to take non CB tests just because of the lack of real practice tests. </p>
<p>For AP's, it's even worse. You have to pay like $15 for one exam off CB, which no one is going to do. Or, you can buy PR or whatever and use those exams. </p>
<p>I feel that SAT II's and AP's are much easier exams to duplicate, another reason I use non CB materials to prep.</p>
<p>The reason SATIIs are so inaccessible is because they basically reuse questions. I read the threads on the last administration of the chemistry and physics tests before taking mine, and they were virtually identical. Also, there were a few questions from the official tests that were duplicated as well (maybe not the exact same answer choices or wording, but exact same concept).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, commercial publishers do NOT take great care in editing their books. </p>
<p>While any practice is better than no practice at all, the benefits of using tests written by Barrons, Kaplan, and the like do not outweigh the negatives brought by the POOR quality of their books. Filled with questions that are often irrelevant and mistake-laden, the tests presented in the SAT books published by Barron's and similar companies are best avoided.</p>
<p>My first SAT I used nothing but BB and got screwed over. Second time around I used PR and did significantly better. It really depends on what you need to improve on, I think. BB was simply too easy for me, so I always got the questions right, but when it came time for the real thing the questions always seemed harder, hehe.</p>
<p>when you take a blue book practice test, is the lower score, higher score or average of the two the best prediction for your actual SAT score?</p>