<p>Are the tests in the new Barron's chemistry book accurate?? I haven't finished studying it yet but I took the first test anf got 800. Also does the book cover enough/too much/just the right amount of the material we need? Let me know... thanks :]</p>
<p>one of my friend averaged 680 on barron's and got a 800 in may test
another one averaged 750 and got an 800 in may test</p>
<p>i am taking it in a week. so i guess i'll see</p>
<p>It is accurate because the tests are harder. If you're getting 650 or above on Barron's tests, then you will get 750+, most likely, on the real thing. McGraw Hill and PR tests are not accurate. McGraw Hill's are just way too easy. I got 800s on each of those, and I got a 680 on the real thing. I walked out of there, so confident. Either CB made a mistake, the curve was real bad, or I got a bad impression from McGraw Hill. Now, I'm gonna go buy the Barron's book and take it over again.</p>
<p>"McGraw Hill and PR tests are not accurate."
What's wrong with PR?</p>
<p>Ok thanks :]
I feel that there are some chunks of info in Barron's that are just not relevant. Oh well...</p>
<p>The Barron's SAT II test is more difficult than the actual exam. It prepares students and fills them with useful knowledge outside of the exam materials.</p>
<p>Expect a 100 point drop from the predicted real exam score when taking the Barron's practice tests.</p>
<p>This thread is raising my hopes a bit.
Which chunks of Barron's do you find irrelevant, I<3Pi?</p>
<p>^ Like all the background stuff...</p>
<p>I see what you mean--A lot of it is gratuitous b/c it goes so into detail and we probably won't need to know it but sometimes it helps build up the knowledge you do need to know.</p>
<p>P.S. Since you got an 800 on the first Barron's practice test, would you mind answering my thread "How is this right?"?</p>
<p>Edit: P.P.S. Thanks.</p>