<p>Well I've been taking a lot of Princeton Review exams and the CR portion always kicks my behind, but I did a section in CR from an old SAT test and only got 4/24 wrong, one which I would have left blank, and the other 3 I didn't read closely enough.</p>
<p>Anyways, my point is this : Do you feel that some of the simulated tests from places like Princeton Review and Barron's generally harder than the real SAT stuff or are they usually just on par?</p>
<p>I've been taking the Princeton Review tests and I found the same thing. The Princeton Review tests I think are harder. However, its also rather evident that they are not actual SAT questions.</p>
<p>True, and if the case is as stated then I'm actually VERY ecstatic, as my scores on the SAT should be higher than the PR tests</p>
<p>omg I have the EXACT same feeling as you do! I tend to do so much worse on PR CR sections than on like...Blue book exams. And yeah, Barron's math is insane lol.</p>
<p>Plus, I took a PR SAT course right before I took the PSAT and I kept scoring around the 580ish range with the PR practice tests. But when I took the PSAT, the CR was insanely easy, and I ended up getting a 70 on that (it was vocab that kicked me in the ass!). So, I like to think that most test prep books just make the reading a lot harder.</p>
<p>Wow I just took a PR test and I got a 2070 on it, currently my aim for the SAT is just a 2100 so if I can do that good on the PR test and our correlation makes even a little sense I should be right there :D</p>
<p>I agree. There is quite some difference between the difficulty of the practice tests and the actual SAT test. However, in my opinion that is an advantage for all. Since the practice tests are hard and say we score okay on them.. we are bound to get better on the actual test (hopefully). It overall gives better preparation. Maybe it's been done on purpose for that reason (better prep.) We'll be more prepared for hard questions</p>