<p>Let's get it started. Who's taking it on Nov 4th? I hope practice tests scores dont correlate to real scores ^^</p>
<p>I agree. I really hope practice scores don't correlate.</p>
<p>For people who have taken bio SAT II, which type of test best resembles the actual test? (PR, Kaplan, Barrons)</p>
<p>Also, maybe if people could list their common/tricky mistakes it might help others to look out for them too .. for me, I always mix up metaphase I and II in meiosis, when in metaphase I THAT is when the homologous pairs of chromosomes pair up. Also, I just learned today (or maybe made the realization) that if there is a centromere present, the whole structure is ONE chromosome (haha, okay I know many of you are way beyond this simple point, but if it helps anybody out, I'm happy).</p>
<p>Good luck studying and please fill this thread up!</p>
<p>I've basically read the whole Barron's book in two weeks. I think I would lose my mind if I ever had to study for SATs again.</p>
<p>RC, did you already take the Test? If you did, how did your practice scores correlate to your real score?</p>
<p>I think the barrons tests (i did ecology) are too easy. I got like a 590 on kaplans, 630 on princeton's (around) and a 760 on barrons with like 15 minutes to spare.</p>
<p>kaplan's is too hard, barron's is too easy, princeton review is pretty accurate with slight aberrations. Kaplan's has some stuff that doesn't even correlate to what the test would look like and it prepares you pretty excessively. I would stick with PR but read the Kaplan's for info, it's quite good though the tests are inaccurate.</p>
<p>good news guys...as in my case practice scores dont correlate. i took the sparknotes test online and got 580...scores came out today and wala....700 :)</p>
<p>How does Sparknotes compare with all the other prep books?</p>
<p>Sparknotes is ****ing me off. 600, 650, 570. Studying like mad still for tommorow haha. I'm praying I become smarter tommorow and get 700+ :)</p>
<p>Sparknotes is actually easier than the actual sat 2. As previous posters hve mentioned, i'd say prince review is the best</p>
<p>and barrons is bogus, the tests ask you a lot of questions that will not be on the test, such as specific diseases of plants and humans (no, not diabetes, stuff like mylemexia). It's based on it's own writings, and not on the actual test structure.</p>
<p>I just took my first practice test (Barron's) and got a 680. I thought Barron's was supposedly harder than the real test?</p>
<p>omgawsh, this sat 2 was so hard!</p>
<p>I think Biology was pretty fair if I did alright I see myself with a 700. The last four questions for the M section I think was pretty screwed up of them to include something on Wavelengths which I didnt cover too well. Was kind of ticked off at that, but all in all fair test.</p>
<p>i don't think it was that hard, but i made soo many dumb ass mistakes
such as...snakes not having bones, oxidation-reduction (was that atp?), and the colorblindedness (i may have gotten all of those wrong). but otherwise it was fair</p>
<p>The oxidation reduction problem was not ATP. If you remember from taking chemistry its the xfer of h+ ions. </p>
<p>I dont recall what you mean about the snakes being boneless question..</p>
<p>i took E, and i made a lot of dumb mistakes too. Wasn't the test rather random?</p>
<p>for oxidation i wrote donor giving stuff to receiver...i was probably thinking too much. do u remember the one with the trees in two samples</p>
<p>The bull one was E? (guy got ripped off) I left it blank but I think it was E. I left the ones I should have guess blanked, and vice versa -_-. I am definitely retaking, and considering canceling.</p>
<p>tree one was really messed up, I had so little time to interpret the graphs. I think i put um 2,3 for the questions dealing with if white pine affected cedar growth and hardwoods or something. how about the one about the shark and bone questions, umm dog heart system and any other questions feel free to discuss.</p>