Hey everyone, I basically just finished my studying for the DAT! After months of dedication the day is coming up very soon. I take the test this Thursday and as far as full length tests go, I have completed DAT Bootcamp's Full Length Tests 1-4, the 2007 actual DAT, and the 2009 actual DAT. I wanted to share the scores with you because the scores are a bit all over the place.
Basically I wanted to know which one is the better predictor of what the actual DAT is like. And I am curious if my scores seem to be good, bad or ugly. When I say "good" or "bad" it probably helps to know which schools I want to get into.. To get a better insight, I am a California resident hoping to get into UCLA or UCSF with a high GPA, many extracurriculars, nearly a thousand hours of volunteering/shadowing, and 6 strong LOC's.
I will try to take the comments with a grain of salt. I just want to get a ballpark evaluation of my scores. Thank you everyone!
Bootcamp Test 1-4 Averages:
Bio: 22
GC: 22
OC: 20
RC: 21
QR: 21
PAT: 20
(21 AA)
2007 DAT:
Bio: 17
GC: 21
OC: 30
RC: 18
QR: 22
PAT: 22
(22AA)
(21 TS)
2009 DAT:
This one is a little bit weird to do the score conversion on, since some people claim they have the 2009 conversion sheet, and others say it did not come with the conversion sheet. The latter option then says to use the 2007 conversion sheet and add 1 point to all of the sciences. I found a conversion sheet that is supposed to be from the 2009 test, and I also used the 2007 conversion sheet and provided both results below.
2009 DAT (scored from the “apparent” 2009 conversion sheet)
Bio: 20
GC: 21
OC: 20
RC: 20
QR: 17
PAT: 25
(20 AA)
(20 TS)
OR
2009 DAT (scored from the 2007 conversion sheet [+1 point for each science])
Bio: 20
GC: 20
OC: 21
RC: 20
QR: 19
PAT: 25
(20 AA)
(? TS)
Basically I wanted to know which one is the better predictor of what the actual DAT is like. And I am curious if my scores seem to be good, bad or ugly. When I say "good" or "bad" it probably helps to know which schools I want to get into.. To get a better insight, I am a California resident hoping to get into UCLA or UCSF with a high GPA, many extracurriculars, nearly a thousand hours of volunteering/shadowing, and 6 strong LOC's.
I will try to take the comments with a grain of salt. I just want to get a ballpark evaluation of my scores. Thank you everyone!
Bootcamp Test 1-4 Averages:
Bio: 22
GC: 22
OC: 20
RC: 21
QR: 21
PAT: 20
(21 AA)
2007 DAT:
Bio: 17
GC: 21
OC: 30
RC: 18
QR: 22
PAT: 22
(22AA)
(21 TS)
2009 DAT:
This one is a little bit weird to do the score conversion on, since some people claim they have the 2009 conversion sheet, and others say it did not come with the conversion sheet. The latter option then says to use the 2007 conversion sheet and add 1 point to all of the sciences. I found a conversion sheet that is supposed to be from the 2009 test, and I also used the 2007 conversion sheet and provided both results below.
2009 DAT (scored from the “apparent” 2009 conversion sheet)
Bio: 20
GC: 21
OC: 20
RC: 20
QR: 17
PAT: 25
(20 AA)
(20 TS)
OR
2009 DAT (scored from the 2007 conversion sheet [+1 point for each science])
Bio: 20
GC: 20
OC: 21
RC: 20
QR: 19
PAT: 25
(20 AA)
(? TS)
Relax tomorrow OP you've earned it!
