How accurate PR Physics?

Test Preparation SAT Subject Test Preparation
1

<p>Hi.</p>

<p>I’m currently using Princeton Review Physics SAT subject test review book. For those of you who have been in my situation, what do you think about the difficulty of the practice test, compared to the real one?</p>

<li><p>What do you think about the curve in PR compared to the real one?</p></li>
<li><p>How similar are the real/PR tests in terms of type of questions and material covered?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Please, if you can back up your argument with actual stats, that would be great. Also, I would be immensely grateful if you could point out things that are on the test which are absent from PR, as well as stuff not on the test that is covered by PR.</p>

<p>Thanks so much.</p>

<p>-Watson&Crick</p>

2

<p>I just got 66/75 raw score on a PR practice. Do you think that actually translates into 800 on the real? What kind of raw score would you think is on the safe side for "overcompensating" for a 800?</p>

3

<p>66/75 is a solid 800.</p>

4

<p>@ Watson&Crick</p>

<p>How did you prepare for the Physics test? I'm a little intimidated by the concepts because my honors physics teacher didn't touch on a lot of the Physics SAT II material.</p>

<p>Any recommended books?</p>

5

<p>hmm well honestly, i found that no review book mimics the actual exam except for of course the official collegeboard one from the big subject test book
the actual exam has too many word questions (no math at all) and hardly any calculations and the word questions are just.... WEIRD
but if i had to pick a good review book (i actually only used them for tests)
it would be pr for sure</p>

<p>PR Tests: 800s
Kaplan Tests: 800s
Barrons: 800s
Real Test in collegeboard book: 790</p>

<p>Actual Score: 790 :( kinda disappointing actually i wish i could retake it without looking bad to colleges</p>

6

<p>^No worries. I don't think any college would really distinguish 790 from 800 on that test, which is a bit of a speed test covering a broad range of topics (I've had a lot of physics and will still screw up on a few questions on a test like that under test conditions). It nags now but you won't even care about soon enough.</p>

<p>BTW, for the OP I also tend to think PR comes reasonably close. Kaplan is a bit superficial and Barron's too calculation-oriented. No hard evidence, though, just another impression. I suppose your best bet may be to use all of them!</p>

7

<p>^ I basically agree with that. I used all 3 books plus the CB test for an 800</p>

8

<p>Wow, you guys are dedicated! buying 3 review books for a single test.</p>

<p>I just use the PR, and when I don't feel confident w/ sth, use the Giancoli textbook (which I like much better because it's math-oriented.)
Stueduey, what was your raw score on PR tests?</p>

9

<p>My experience was that the explanations were spot on in terms of getting the right topics and excluding extraneous information, and that the practice tests were slightly harder than the real thing.</p>

10

<p>how do feel about the sparknotes review book tests?
close to real? close to PR?</p>

11

<p>Very close, I even saw some identical questions (!!)</p>

12

<p>watsoncrick: first PR test i got a raw score of 74
second one i got i think a 67 (this one was harder)</p>

<p>barrons i got about 65-67 on em all and kaplan i got 70s usually</p>

13

<p>Just took a REALLY old Real SAT II practice test: raw score=74/75 (edition 2000). </p>

<p>What does that really mean? I have the impression the test is ridiculously easy, which according to many CCer's say, is untrue (physics should be the hardest test isn't it?) Is my test too old?</p>

14

<p>Well it's probably easy, but you're probably also getting the hang of the test :)</p>

15

<p>I am taking physics but do I need to take ap physics or can I just use the pr review?</p>