<p>I am going to take Physics in November 8th. Currently, I am hitting low 600's on the practice tests (Two of them to be precious.) </p>
<p>My aim is something around 720, realistic aim. Is getting 600's on McGraw Hill a good sign or no? </p>
<p>I'll be applying to MIT (RD). </p>
<p>P.S: I have A's in my Physics class but perviously I didn't have knowledge about waves and tension forces or relativity- these concepts are all new to me.... </p>
<p>[/Bold] Are energy levels asked on the Physics SAT II? Just curious? </p>
<p>I used Barron’s and Princeton Review when I prepared for SAT Physics last October (I got 800 with a physics class that only covered mechanics and some self-study). I think that both were quite good when it comes to covering the topics needed for the test. If you have a chance, I think it would be helpful if you read through the sections for the topics with which you are not familiar. You should also attempt some Princeton Review practice tests. In my opinion, those were the closest to the real test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me, reallyyyyyy? 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I am saving for the last day, bro! Anyways, which test were the closest to the real thing? Practice Test 1 or Practice Test 2 ? </p>
<p>THANK YOU!!</p>
<p>It’s been a while, so I don’t remember which one is better. I just remember that I focused on Barron’s practice tests, and did a couple of PR ones. Then, on test day, I realized that the PR tests were better than the Barron’s ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p> Yes, I have heard that from so many people that Barron’s tests just throws you off and are nothing liek the real test</p>
<p>I have the official Textbook and I also did the practice test, but I always found out, from math level 2, that the practice test that collegeboard gives are NOTHING like the real test</p>