<p>Hi, I am wondering for those of you have Rocket Review and/or Grammatix, how do the two compare? I currently have Rocket Review, but by these posts on these boards, Grammatix seems like it is the more notable one to get. I would like feed back to how these compare. </p>
<p>Also, which sections does Grammatix help out for the most- Verbal, Writing, or Math and would you see more gains if you had lower scores in the Writing and Verbal section (500ish), as compared to say 700ish?</p>
<p>I am interested as well.</p>
<p>I just purchased Grammatix, and I have read the Critical Reading and Math sections. It is very helpful for both of them. The approach to Critical Reading is very interesting and it works. Ive done a practice test after reading those two parts and got a 720-800 math, 650-730 verbal, and a 620-760 in Writing. I previsouly got mid-600's in each section. This is, however, without reading the writing section at all, and getting most of my critical reading questions wrong on sentence completion questions. Also, this was on the College Board book practic test #3.</p>
<p>Allow me to shed some lights on the differences. </p>
<p>First, I truly believe that both authors are extremely passionate about their work. Adam Robinson is obviously more famous since he was one of the pioneers at Princeton Review. </p>
<p>Rather than discuss the background of the authors, let's focus on the books:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>RocketReview follows the usual pattern of Princeton Review and Kaplen. The book is targeted to a mass audience. It is also obvious that it WAS INPORTANT for RR to rush to the market and be on the shelves before the summer. Accordingly, the book is marred by typos and errors ... all facts that I find blatantly unacceptable. I really do not care if the author offers a mea culpa -and a list of corrections- on his website. The fact is that one should have the INTEGRITY to present a correct manuscript, especially one with publishers' resources. </p></li>
<li><p>Grammatix's guide was delayed until the SAT presented the format and contents by The College Board. The guide is thus correct and also polished and void of typos. It is shorter but more to the point.</p></li>
<li><p>Despite its greater length, RR is a more generic book. Not unlike most books of its type, it spends much more time on the math section than on the verbal sections. Many examples used by RR are .... dead wrong in their approach, or worse in their answer. Again, unacceptable!</p></li>
<li><p>RR is probably one of the best New SAT book presented by a publishing company. But, that does not amount to a whole lot. Swimming in a sea of mediocrity does not make you an Olympic swimmer. At least, RR recognizes that the best tests are TCB official tests. So, he gets a few points for integrity here. Compare that with the Kaplan, Barron's and Princeton Review that continue to push their worthless synthetic tests. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>My conclusion is that the Grammatix guide is much more effective, especially for the verbal sections. I will stick to my usual recommendations: buy as many books as you can. Read the examples and strategies in your journey to UNDERSTAND the test. As you work through the published tests (TCB only), go back and forth between books, and build your own list of "tricks". Please remember that I use the word "trick" in a non-pejorative way. Again, no book contains the Holy Grail of easy preparation. Most of them can contribute to your success. Grammatix does a better job than RR. </p>
<p>The development of the ability to recognize the patterns of the questions is crucial for doing well on the SAT. While some people possess the natural ability to do so without much effort, the majority of us need practice to reach our potential.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say grammatix is void of typos. I've only read the first few pages yet i distinctly recall one typo. And i'm willing to bet that the one i caught wasn't the only one there was. I believe it was something i along the lines of "this approach will change the ways you look at the SAT." It's nothing major, but I just thought you should know it's not void of errors.</p>
<p>Thanks for the catch--I'll change it.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
<p>ps If you find any others, please let me know!</p>