<p>for math, barrons is good because it really overprepares you and the math test wil be cake after barrons.</p>
<p>chem and physics i both got barrons... but barrons sometimes has random info that wont be on the test... like, for instance, the physics book has stuff about AM/FM radio waves that are definitely not going to be seen on the physics test...</p>
<p>i would recommend barraons for iic, for the same reasons mentioned above.</p>
<p>for physics, i suggest princeton review and barrons. pr has good review material, with some extra as well. as for barrons, i didn't use it, but i'm suggesting it since i hear it being recommended so much... yaaa :]</p>
<p>people will tell you not to use kaplans cause' it's too easy, but i used it, and i found it as a REALLY good way to make sure your fundamental understanding of the concepts is solid. and even then, there were 3 virtually indentical questions that appeared on the actual test i took that were from kaplan prac tests.</p>
<p>didn't take chem, so i wouldnt know about that one :]</p>
<p>math iic - barron's definetly and if you need more practice tests after that then meylani's 15 practice tests</p>
<p>physics - sparknotes DEFINETLY, PR is just too complex because it uses the chapters out of AP Physics B book...barron's is good too but I felt it didn't cover everything. I felt sparknotes covered EVERYTHING in nough detail to understand it because after the test, i found most of their questions just like the test.</p>
<p>chemistry - DEFINETLY barrons. Covers everything. Over prepares. Got 10 of my friends an 800. No exaggeration.</p>
<p>I really don't think barron math is any good...haha..sorry, it made the stuff so hard, and I took a real test, found its not like the stuff in the barron's at all and a lot easier....</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree, PR phy is really complex, but happy to know that its not accurate..so I guess I will study according to the sparkknotes...</p>
<p>and for chem, I guess I will just take some sparknotes tests as well, really have no time to be overprepared before next month ,lol</p>
<p>For Math IIC, I used Kaplan's book just for the summary at the end of each chapter. The last page of the chapter sums up everything into important statements or useful equations. But for practice tests, PR is more realistic. Kaplan's are pretty hard.
I can't comment on Barron's, I didn't see it.</p>
<p>If you're looking for practice tests, then I don't see the problem with Barron's books. They've got plenty of practice tests in them...albeit more difficult than the real exams. But, since all you are after is practice tests, why not stick with Barron's? I can't honestly comment on their helpfulness, since I didn't end up studying, but I know they've helped many others.</p>
<p>if you go to ur school, they should have the chem SAT II published from before, my school provides us with old SAT IIs because they know that everyone can't buy the real tests. You just come in the office, take a copy and leave. Somethign like that should be available in your school.</p>
<p>hey, I think that Kaplan's books are easier than the real tests and Barron's are more diffcult. You should use the Kaplan's books when you learn SAT Math IC and IIC for the first time. Then, you can try some tests from Barron's. That help you have the good preparation for the real test: not too pessimistic or optimistic.</p>