<p>Barron's is very inaccurate in terms of SAT II Chem. preparation. It is usually too detailed, and provides a lot of useless info. Through my study, I have found Kaplan to be the most comprehensive and effective in summaring the necessary material, and PR the best for practice tests. PM for more detailed information regarding this.</p>
<p>That's what i thought... So if I get higher scores on PR than I do on Barrons, PR would actually be closer to what I would really get on the actual test???</p>
<p>Barron's Math books are always good, but the Chem and Physics books are too wordy. However I think we have no other choice since working with Kaplan prep books and Barron's ones brings a lot of difference. Kaplan's Chem and Physics, IMO, de-evaluate the real test, exercises are easy and do not evoke level of knowledge tested on the SAT.
I read the Kaplan's Physics thoroughly and find it easy to capture things, but then I used Barron's and have to do draft work before getting the answers. That's the difference from my own experience.
Questions regarding labs in Barron's, again, are too hard to overcome. I took the SAT II chem last year and actually the "questions peraining to chem labs" are alot easier.
So I said, use Barron's for working and use Kaplan, PR for reading.</p>
<p>I think the Barron's book is pretty good. I used it to gain some obscure chemistry knowledge right before the sat II and ap. you shouldn't have to teach yourself the theory out of barron's. learn it out of a good text like zumdahl's. after that, learn the random crap you never cared about from barron's.</p>