<p>Since a lot of people just finished taking these subjects, I was wondering: Which tests were harder?
For Literature, people say that Barron's practice tests are harder than the real thing, is that true?
For US History, I heard Barron's practice tests are the hardest ones out there. How much harder than the real test are they?
Has anybody tried Sparknotes' practice tests for US History? I heard people say they are pretty accurate, albeit repetitive. What was your score on these ones, and what are you scores / how are you expecting to do on the real thing?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>I took both, and I thought Literature was definitely harder. Granted, I didn’t really prepare for it whereas I did study some for USH, but I think practice is more important for the Lit test. I feel like you can’t really study for Lit, but that’s the best way to go for USH. </p>
<p>In essence, study for US history (of course take a couple of practice tests as well), and do practice tests for Lit. I used REA’s crash course book for APUSH and found it particularly helpful for the SAT subject test as well as the AP exam. It covers the main points, and at a few instances I even found the wording on the actual subject test to be exactly the same as some bulleted points in the book. As for Lit, I only took one practice test from The Official Study Guide for All SAT Subject Tests, which btw is the only place you’ll find ACTUAL test questions (other than the College Board website). With practice, you’ll get better at pacing and knowing the types of questions it’ll ask.</p>
<p>Best of luck!</p>
<p>In terms of scoring, Literature is a very little bit harder than USH to score 800 in (99 vs 98). From 800 on down, USH gradually becomes easier to get the same score in. 82 and 77th percentile at 700, 52 and 45th at 600.</p>
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Subject-Test-Percentile-Ranks-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>With respect to that least, it seems that a lot more seniors have 800’s in Math II than Math I. Getting an 800 on Math II is only 89th percentile, while an 800 on Math I is the 99th percentile. Strange…or am I just missing something here?</p>
<p>blissfulting, have you tried any sparknotes tests for US history? If so, how was it?
How accurate were the blue book tests with respect to the real tests?</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies guys.</p>
<p>Statistically, it’s definitely harder to get a high score on the Literature Subject Test than on US History.</p>
<p>Subject Test / % of test-takers scoring 750+ / % scoring 700+
Literature / 6% / 18%
US History / 11% / 25%</p>
<p>Of all the SAT subject Tests, Lit has the second-lowest percentage of takers getting 750+ scores. The lowest? Math I, with only 5% scoring 750+. In contrast, 25% of those taking Math II score 750+. This may seem odd since Math II requires more advanced math, but there are a couple of reasons for it. First, the curve is much harsher on Math I; miss one or two problems and your score plummets, while on Math II you might get one or two wrong and still get an 800 or close to it. Second, there’s self-selection going on here. Most of the math whizzes take Math II and skip Math I. Students who have had less math, often because they’re not as good at it, gravitate toward Math I. So the pools of test-takers are very different, with far more top math students in the Math II pool.</p>
<p>As for Lit and US history, keep in mind that they’re just very different tests. The Lit test is more of a skills test, not a test of substantive knowledge. Some students score well on Lit without any prep, especially if they’re lifetime voracious readers, accustomed to reading really difficult texts, and have strong critical reading skills (as evidenced, for example, by high SAT Reasoning Test CR scores). If you’re not in that category, you may have a tough time with this test no matter how much you prep. I’ve seen the Lit Subject Test described as “CR on steroids,” and that seems about right. </p>
<p>US History, on the other hand, is purely a knowledge test. It demands encyclopedic knowledge of facts and events, often at a high level of detail. This is something you can study for. It helps to have had a really strong US history class (and possibly to take the test right after your class is over), but with a lot of effort most good students with good memories should be able to acquire a sufficient command of this knowledge to do well on the test. It may require a lot of diligent prep, and it depends in part on your capacity to retain and retrieve large amounts of detailed information.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies guys, but I think some of you missed the point of the thread. What I’m asking is whether the real tests are harder than practice tests or not.</p>
<p>I took the US history test.
On sparknotes i got scores ranging from 740-780ish, and in the BB i got around 780ish. On the real thing I scored an 800, but that might have been simply because I continued studying after the practice tests. Overall, the practice tests were about the same or slightly higher difficulty than the actual tests.</p>