<p>I was just wondering if the Blue Book is a good indicator of real SAT score.</p>
<p>My first test was 2240, then 2370, then 3 consecutive 2400s.</p>
<p>I'm crossing my fingers for a 2400 this Saturday, so I was wondering if the Blue Book predicts your SAT performance well or not. </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>WOW THOSE ARE GREAT SCORES!!! CONGRATULATIONS :)</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the Blue Book is quite accurate considering they are made by the College Board… but it does have to be under timed conditions to be most accurate.</p>
<p>I agree with Legatus. If you didn’t time yourself properly and/or go through an entire correctly-timed exam, those scores will be a little higher than what you will actually receive.</p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll get at least a 2300 though judging based on your previous performance on practice tests (don’t take my word for it though… 
)</p>
<p>Thanks guys! :)</p>
<p>I didn’t time myself. I can usually finish each section (except essay) in <5 min, so I never bother with the timer. It causes unnecessary anxiety. I’ll save it for tomorrow!</p>
<p>You’re either being incredibly pretentious, or you’re trolling. Finishing the section in less than 5 minutes? Right.</p>
<p>Posts: 12.</p>
<p>Definitely trolling.</p>
<p>Maybe he meant “with 5 minutes to spare”. Just giving the benefit of doubt…</p>
<p>Each section with 5 minutes to spare is much more believable than doing it under 5 minutes. I cannot, within any boundary of sensibility imagine someone completing a CR section in 5 minutes.</p>
<p>Well, Math in 10. CR and W in 5, generally. (But I spend the rest of the time checking answers)</p>
<p>I can believe it. If English is poster’s first language, it’s quite plausible.</p>
<p>I’d tend to agree that this is completely possible, although I would think it would be the other way around, Math in 5, W in 10, but then again all of us have different strengths!</p>
<p>They were real tests :). CB is lazy, they don’t put new tests/experimental tests in the blue book.</p>
<p>@Adversa.</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s my first language.</p>
<p>I got up to 2250 (middle of range) in Blue Book, but got a ****ing 2030 in the real thing.</p>
<p>^Ouch! That’s making me nervous…</p>
<p>The Blue Book and other actual real tests from the past - I have 22 of them in addition to 10 real tests from College Board that you can buy from any bookstore - are the best indicators of what will come out on the real test. I scored a 800 on the writing in October, and I can see a remarkable similarity of grammatical patterns that are tested over and over on the real tests. Trust me, I’ve solved almost everything that is out there on the market, from Princeton Review to Kaplan to Barron’s, and these books have a lot of errors and additional grammatical patterns/error types that you will never see tested on the real test and will only confuse you. </p>
<p>Classic examples: I see “would of” tested a lot on the real test, but some other books never have this error on their tests, and while some people would see the obvious error with “would of” right away, you’d be surprised at how many students mark this as a no error based on their flawed thinking that it sounds ok. </p>
<p>“Were I” is another great example of the subjunctive case that I see tested on the real test often, but not in most books, who will use a pattern of “If I were …If I had …I would have…,” so most students who have never seen this pattern “Were I or you…” automatically think it’s incorrect, although it’s often the correct answer. </p>
<p>People are creatures of habit, and even the SAT makes can’t escape their natural tendency to recycle the same sentence patterns and question types over and over. Same applies to the essay portion. </p>
<p>Stick to solving real tests, and you will do better on the actual test.</p>
<p>So apparently it’s not that good of an indicator?</p>