<p>No, but there is no actual conversion table for you to see what your raw score translates into. The system used to calculate raw score is the same for all of the tests, but the converted score is different. For barrons, after you get your raw score, it only gives a small table that doesn’t even give you a number between 200-800, and it only tells you that it good or bad.</p>
<p>^ you find it with the formula shizzle posted. holy crap dude, would you be able to wipe your butt without a chart explaining it.</p>
<p>^lmao</p>
<p>Anyone know what a score of 690-720 would be on the actual exam?</p>
<p>Quick question guys, I scored a 640 and 660 on the Barrons. Does that guarantee me a 750+ on the actual test?</p>
<p>bump
I keep coming to this thread…</p>
<p>^^Oh, alright. I skimmed right past that formula, reading only the part about the raw score. My bad.</p>
<p>yea i agree on what hbrad8002 said.
all the questions are so dependent on graphing calculator.
i’ve been doing horribly on the barron’s practice tests (even previous years’ editions) but i got an 800 on PR without a graphing calculator.
this is stressing me out cuz i don’t know what test to believe…</p>
<p>Im getting low 700’s on Barron’s (not timed) but I can manage a 800 on the CB book pretty easily. Is the Sparknotes exam an accurate indicator?</p>
<p>I got 28 on one and only barron’s test I took but somehow pulled off 800 on the real test</p>
<p>*** i got a 650 on barrons</p>
<p>but a 560 on sparknotes…</p>
<p>dont worry, people 
i believe a 600 on barron’s tests would ensure at least a 700 on the actual test
anw, you can just add 70-100 marks to your barron’s tests’ scores for the reason that you dont know how to use graphing calculator :D</p>
<p>for model test 5, number 33 on the barron’s 2009 edition. </p>
<p>did anyone think that the answer was incorrect? i only see two triangles, why does the answer key say that one of them has an altitude of 1 when there’s only altitudes of what i thought should be (25 - 1) and (625 - 25)?</p>
<p>If Barron’s is this much harder, and is basically what we all should have learned in class, then the actual test must be pretty easy. Barron’s covers less than what we do in Pre-Calc which gets me worried b/c I was good at that class, and I still find it difficult. It’s extremely contradictory. </p>
<p>There’s a model test #5??</p>
<p>yea… the edition i have (2009) has diagnostics test and 6 model tests.</p>
<p>I’m still a little bit worried about the time constraints. Even though my scores had turned out okay (nothing too bad, with a lowest score of 4 tests a 720), it was mainly because I made only one or two mistakes in the questions that I did answer. As for the questions that I did not answer…I left a little bit less than 7 or 8 questions blanks at the end of each test. Should I try rushing a bit and risking more errors to get everything done?</p>
<p>Barron’s is more difficult than the actual test. I missed a couple on some of the exams and I still managed to get an 800.</p>
<p>i’m using barron’s… kaplan, and PR… hope i do okay day after tmr… O=</p>
<p>yeah i’m wondering the same thing. i was hoping to get a 750+ on the real test but so far i’ve only scored 650 and a 580 on the barron’s >;( which is making me really frustrated and i’m wondering if i should just not take math ii… then i tried one from the official sat books and only got a 700. am i screwed?</p>
<p>ROFL…how do you guys score so high? Just took the Barron’s Diagnostic Test and scored a 545 hahaa. Math isn’t my strongest subject, but, coming straight out of PreCal, I thought I would AT LEAST be in the high 600s - low 700s without prep. I correctly answered 20/50, missed 6/50, and omitted 25/50! I had no clue how to answer 50% of the questions on the test lol. </p>
<p>I’ve got all day tomorrow to go through the book, so it’s time to CRAM :).</p>
<p>How did you get a 545? Its only possible to get scores between 200 and 800 in increments of 10. I have time to do maybe 1 or 2 more tests. Should I continue with barrons, or should I test out sparknotes?</p>