Dr Chung's SAT Math: Good or bad?

^There is a long running thread about recommendations and discussions on books. It is not void of bad recommendations but it represents a better consensus than the individual threads. As far as the math goes, there are a number for regular contributors that have helped students here and have published books. One can weigh the advice given here and ascertain the quality. The author of PWNSAT used to be active here as well and his book is a lot more helpful than the ones that are advocating a more “difficult” scope.

For the verbal sections, there a couple of perennial favorites such as Erika’s and Mike Barrett’s books. Verbal is more subjective than math as people come to the test with vastly different levels of education and reading ability. Math is more universal element and probably easier for most to improve on.

I certainly agree that PWN is a better book in terms of quality, and you are better off going through real problems first. However, if you are 650+ and have a lot of time for self study, this is an excellent book to use. The problems with the tips are about the same level as the similar problems in Barrons SAT, and you want to be able to do them all. Also, 20 whole math tests of level 3-5 problems are useful.

Those tests may be useful in some ways foe some, but they are counterproductive for others and inefficient for many. Taking tests that weren’t written by the CB has a host of issues which have been catalogued regularly on this forum. I strongly suggest using real CB tests instead of any test created by a third party.