<p>I'm taking it. but the curriculum is so massive! I doubt that I'll be able to study it all by January.
I don't even know whether to take Molecular or Ecological Bio.</p>
<p>Try the Princeton Review book. It only has the bare minimum of what you need to know, and it goes very quick.</p>
<p>It's managable if you have that till January.</p>
<p>In my opinion, you should take Ecology.... It seems a lot more common sense-driven, rather than Molecular, where you actually need to know stuff =P And I agree with szzl, if you have a good book, you can cover everything you need to know really quickly (I covered the entire Physics course in one night 4 months after taking a 10 week course =P)</p>
<p>Is Barron's good? It's the only book I have at the moment. I can't depend on school bec. they are so damn slow; they'll never finish on time (they're still in the first lesson in the first chapter). I'll just have to do it on my own.
I think Molecular is better for me. I don't know why...it just is lol.</p>
<p>Do not use Barrons! It is so bad for Bio -> way too much info! Usually I like this, but for Bio it is really a waste of time, just look over your textbook notes, that's what I did and got a780.</p>
<p>Actually it's the curve that will kill you on that exam</p>
<p>well i think the oct test was unique because it required alot of info that only barrons would have. If you take E, the material is easier, but its much trickier. They will ask you about farming and nutrition- which only barrons has.</p>
<p>The teacher gives out handouts and stuff; it's way shorter and has mush less crap like most textbooks have. But I can't help thinking that they might leave out some important info. (plus they are going waaay too slow! and give them to us as they progress in the curiculum).</p>
<p>EDIT: Is the curve always bad? I'd hate for something liek that to **** all over my score (which is oging to be bad enough without the curve).</p>
<p>The curve is always a killer.... You can only omit one question to get an 800</p>
<p>how about a 750?</p>
<p>Is the curve really that brutal? In the Official SAT Subject Tests practice board (by CB), you can get an 800 with a raw score of 77-80, and a 790 with a 75-76. I know this curve isn't a whole lot better, but still. 1 wrong to get an 800 is very harsh.</p>
<p>Also, for a 750, CB's book gives raw scores of 68 and 69.</p>
<p>Oh really? Sparknotes said a raw score of 72 yields a 750, but then again, the official Collegeboard book is probably more accurate =P</p>
<p>I read somewhere that you can get a 650 with a raw score of 60; that seems a little off...</p>
<p>For those taking AP Bio- much or any prep needed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope.........</p>
<p>I took SAT and AP Bio in May '06.... Didn't study for either, but I got a 5 on the AP, and a 760 on the SAT. I think that if you already know your AP stuff, you're mostly set for the SAT...</p>
<p>Isn't AP Bio Advanced. I'd imagine that it's being advanced would require a certain degree of preparation, right?</p>
<p>Well, the thing is, we take a whole year of class just to prepare for that advanced test. If you ask me, that's ample time to prepare for some test that has <100 multiple choice questions and a couple free responses... Given not everybody would score a 5, but if you have a decent teacher, passing (3+) shouldn't be a problem...</p>
<p>a whole year seems like more than enough time to prepare for it.
What makes it more advanced than SAT II Biology? What extra subject material does it contain?</p>