The battle between Test-Prep companies

[sushi_cutter]

<p>Barrons Vs. Kaplan Vs. PR
Which is the best for SAT prep in terms of practice tests?</p>

[reloadedxp]

<p>Kaplan suxs…go w/ barrons</p>

[sushi_cutter]

<p>it looks like kaplan had been eliminated. now its down to PR vs. Barrons. Which one?</p>

[hannah2010]

<p>I would go with Barrons</p>

[jamesford]

<p>This topic has been beaten to death. NEVER use practice materials other than CB. From xiggi’s post:</p>

<p>

This is the time to introduce a caveat. Under no circumstances should a student use tests that are not published by The College Board.

</p>

<p>

I believe that it was Incognito, a former CC poster, who coined the term “synthetic” tests. I have borrowed that term very often, or pushed the envelope by labeling them wannabe or fake test. In simple terms, using the synthetic tests was a bad, a very bad idea.

</p>

<p>

Based on past experience, we CANNOT trust the companies that have tried to write tests for the new books. The issue is that most of the tests DO contain mistakes that can lead to students’ confusion. As an example, the SAT book of Barron’s contains good strategies but the tests are mostly irrelevant as they do NOT match the difficulty of the test. It is worth noting that it does NOT help to take a test that is more difficult than the real thing: the extra difficulty does not help a student prepare for the SAT if the type of question will NEVER show up! It is a pure waste of time. The same can be said for books such as the Princeton Review 11 Tests for the New SAT. The book was rushed to capture last summer’s market. Notwithstanding that Princeton Review had never been able to write a single test that was valid for the “old” SAT, one had to question the integrity of PR to engage in such broad speculation about the contents and format of the March 2005 tests.

</p>

<p>

The conclusion is rather simple: there is no reason to use any of the non-official tests.

</p>