1,001 questions about the ASTB (post your scores & ask your questions here!)

[Staythurst]

Strange that you didn't see one, I had at least 3 or 4 questions about logs.

Yeah you didn't need to count in base 2 for the binary, it just asked what the number 4 was in binary (100).

You don't need to spend a whole lot of time on either topic, just memorize the basic rules of logs and understand how to count in binary to 10. I agree that you definitely need to understand the basic algebra and word problems, but for me once I had that done I moved on to some of the more niche things that can pop up, especially when you get into the higher difficulty questions.

To add to what Hoya said--I'm not sure it has been mentioned enough how the test really works. If you get a question right, a more difficult one will appear. A wrong answer will prompt an easier question. This will continue until the computer is convinced that it knows your level of proficiency. Each type of question is assigned a particular difficulty, which of course isn't (and shouldn't be, for the test to be as accurate as possible) revealed. So if you don't see a 'log' question, for example, that is either a good thing, meaning you have eclipsed that level and are now working on the harder questions, or you are not quite there yet on the difficulty scale. I don't remember getting a log question either.

I think this particular test setup suggests that you work from the ground up, trying to get as advanced as you can in the time you have available to study. It almost forces you to be comprehensive. But if you're good with basic algebra or whatever is lower on the difficulty scale, you won't see more than 1 or 2 questions on that at all.

Oh, and sometimes the whole 'difficulty' rating can be mysterious, meaning you can be confused if you think or know you got a question right and a seemingly easier one pops up. This almost hurt my confidence a few times. But the difficulty might be personal or variable, meaning the computer thinks it's hard and you think it's easy or vice versa. Weird but out of my last, say, 10 questions I got probably 7 that were those annoying "average" questions. You know the ones that say "you have an average test score of 75 on the first three tests, what do you need to average on the next four to pass the class" or something like that...

thurst

 

[flynavy830]

Strange that you didn't see one, I had at least 3 or 4 questions about logs.

Yeah you didn't need to count in base 2 for the binary, it just asked what the number 4 was in binary (100).

You don't need to spend a whole lot of time on either topic, just memorize the basic rules of logs and understand how to count in binary to 10. I agree that you definitely need to understand the basic algebra and word problems, but for me once I had that done I moved on to some of the more niche things that can pop up, especially when you get into the higher difficulty questions.

I'm going to piggyback on this comment since I have some information to add/ask. By the way, your comments have been very helpful! I'm getting a bit of test anxiety as I prepare for the ASTB-E, and I think its because I actually did take the paper version, and am scared of a lower score. I scored 5/6/5 48 with a half ass study routine, and like others had mentioned, just looked through solutions and really didn't understand concepts. While I have been studying intensely for the new version, I can't help but to dread the what if's, which is stupid anyways. I don't want to fool myself by studying the gouge and then be out of touch on the exam. What I mean is, a lot of these rate/distance problems only utilize a few factors. Like time given, speed, find distance apart. I've seen some example problems where it goes into WAY more detail, but how do I know if this is relevant study for what I'll encounter? That's the intimidating part. I've also been touching up on exponents and radicals, but once again, how far do they push the questions? Fractional radicals aren't too bad themselves, adding/subtracting/dividing/multiplying isn't too bad either, but I have no idea how extreme it will be. So maybe I'm just worrying myself sick due to the past.

So I guess my question is, how far in depth did you go in your studies? I see a lot of people mention the gouge, and I mean ALL the gouge (which I do have, every last piece), but they really don't go too in depth with certain applications. Obviously my goal is to be over prepared, and my job allows 3-5 hours of study on my downtime. Been making use of every minute.

 

[PMPT]

yes, worthwhile adding, Hopeful Hoya, that you got a higher OAR than me, and although there is no breakdown per section, it could be inferred that you saw logs because you ended up on a higher level than me mathematically. So keep that in mind folks.

I would *generally* recommend learning as much as you can. as one poster said, it is always better to be over prepared than under prepared. but I was mostly speaking with respect to the candidate with only 2 weeks until the test. learning the log rules and understanding them and how to use them might be time better used elsewhere for someone on a tight schedule. I work full-time, so I had to be *very* economical with the time I used for studying. my advice might not apply as much for someone who can realistically devote 3-4 hours per day to the ASTB. I was lucky to get in 1-2 of real hours of work per day in the 2 or 3 weeks prior to the test.

 

[PMPT]

Weird but out of my last, say, 10 questions I got probably 7 that were those annoying "average" questions. You know the ones that say "you have an average test score of 75 on the first three tests, what do you need to average on the next four to pass the class" or something like that...

thurst

I had many like that as well. they were rather laborious.

 

[PMPT]

I'm going to piggyback on this comment since I have some information to add/ask. By the way, your comments have been very helpful! I'm getting a bit of test anxiety as I prepare for the ASTB-E, and I think its because I actually did take the paper version, and am scared of a lower score. I scored 5/6/5 48 with a half ass study routine, and like others had mentioned, just looked through solutions and really didn't understand concepts. While I have been studying intensely for the new version, I can't help but to dread the what if's, which is stupid anyways. I don't want to fool myself by studying the gouge and then be out of touch on the exam. What I mean is, a lot of these rate/distance problems only utilize a few factors. Like time given, speed, find distance apart. I've seen some example problems where it goes into WAY more detail, but how do I know if this is relevant study for what I'll encounter? That's the intimidating part. I've also been touching up on exponents and radicals, but once again, how far do they push the questions? Fractional radicals aren't too bad themselves, adding/subtracting/dividing/multiplying isn't too bad either, but I have no idea how extreme it will be. So maybe I'm just worrying myself sick due to the past.

So I guess my question is, how far in depth did you go in your studies? I see a lot of people mention the gouge, and I mean ALL the gouge (which I do have, every last piece), but they really don't go too in depth with certain applications. Obviously my goal is to be over prepared, and my job allows 3-5 hours of study on my downtime. Been making use of every minute.

I was most surprised by how difficult it was to study for what the test actually throws at you. I don't think any of the study guides available at present (that I have seen, at least, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) actually provide you a reasonable idea of what the test is actually like. In some respects it was harder than I thought, in other respects it was easier than I thought. I think the only helpful advice I can give is to be able to work comfortably with the stuff you'd see in an Algebra 1 book (I cannot recommend 'Forgotten Algebra' enough as a text and workbook if you have the time to go through it and need to be reminded how to do stuff like factor quadratics and other polynomials etc), practice alot of word problems, and have a good level of general scientific awareness of physics principles. I'm not sure its possible to be really any more specific than that, I hate to say. Just browse this thread and look at the example questions to give you some idea of what people have seen.

 

[Staythurst]

It might seem obvious, but there could also be some serious benefit to practicing those old standardized test techniques of process of elimination (POE), back solving (reverse engineering), choose the middle answer and close in, you know stuff like that. I teach the SAT, ACT, GRE, etc. as a private tutor (or at least I did up until I told my clients about impending OCS date and they said goodbye), and I routinely see my students get right answers without really knowing how to do a problem. Or even if they know, the techniques can prevent mistakes or get them the answer faster. While some of those tests are different because of the computer, I still think an ASTB-E taker can benefit. And at least it's one of the broader strategies we can come up with.

 

[PMPT]

that's a very good point. I omitted to mention it because I took it for granted that anyone taking this test will have had to have also taken the SAT etc and so would be familiar with those methods.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

So I guess my question is, how far in depth did you go in your studies? I see a lot of people mention the gouge, and I mean ALL the gouge (which I do have, every last piece), but they really don't go too in depth with certain applications. Obviously my goal is to be over prepared, and my job allows 3-5 hours of study on my downtime. Been making use of every minute.

I studied for ~2 hours every day for about 2 weeks before the test. I'm a pretty good test taker and have played Flight Sims so a lot of the aviation stuff I knew, but I hadn't taken a formal math class in almost three years and I don't do a lot of critical reading being an economics major.

Here's what I would suggest: You can really only study for 4 sections (Math, Critical Reading, Mechanics, Aviation/Nautical History) and kind of for another (the UAV). For Math, CR, and Mechanics, focus on a section a day for 2-3 hours. Read through the gouge, work through problems, and see where you're deficient. Make note of that, and then the next time that subject comes up in the rotation, focus on those topics you had trouble with. Rinse and repeat until you cover all of the topics you're having difficulty with.

For history, I would recommend making flashcards. It's impossible to know everything they could throw at you, and although people suggested reading through the FAA handbook I found that too time consuming. But if you know enough that you can make an educated guess you'll be fine. This is where those traditional test-taking skills especially come in handy.

For UAVs, work on the practice problems that I attached. You should get the hang of it pretty quickly, then it's all about 1) accuracy and 2) getting your reaction time down.

As you get closer to the test, you should feel comfortable with everything you have looked at, and that's when I would start broadening your scope and taking the full practice tests. Then you can see if there's any last areas you can brush up on.

 

[flynavy830]

I studied for ~2 hours every day for about 2 weeks before the test. I'm a pretty good test taker and have played Flight Sims so a lot of the aviation stuff I knew, but I hadn't taken a formal math class in almost three years and I don't do a lot of critical reading being an economics major.

Here's what I would suggest: You can really only study for 4 sections (Math, Critical Reading, Mechanics, Aviation/Nautical History) and kind of for another (the UAV). For Math, CR, and Mechanics, focus on a section a day for 2-3 hours. Read through the gouge, work through problems, and see where you're deficient. Make note of that, and then the next time that subject comes up in the rotation, focus on those topics you had trouble with. Rinse and repeat until you cover all of the topics you're having difficulty with.

For history, I would recommend making flashcards. It's impossible to know everything they could throw at you, and although people suggested reading through the FAA handbook I found that too time consuming. But if you know enough that you can make an educated guess you'll be fine. This is where those traditional test-taking skills especially come in handy.

For UAVs, work on the practice problems that I attached. You should get the hang of it pretty quickly, then it's all about 1) accuracy and 2) getting your reaction time down.

As you get closer to the test, you should feel comfortable with everything you have looked at, and that's when I would start broadening your scope and taking the full practice tests. Then you can see if there's any last areas you can brush up on.

I see a lot of you guys mention how long it's been since you took math. But when you did have to take math, were you good at it? Or would you say you're better at absorbing information when studying? I've been doing what you said, mainly with word problems. Rate problems for example, three weeks ago I was definitely rusty but now I understand the why rather than just the how, so setting them up is easier. I'm just trying to get a feel for how complex the word problems can get. I am utilizing your method as well for UAV, seems pretty solid!

 

[PMPT]

formal math class in almost three years

really? I had always thought that modern economics was rather mathematical and that you guys continued taking courses in stats/econometrics/linear algebra etc etc. or is that really only a 1st/2nd year thing?

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

really? I had always thought that modern economics was rather mathematical and that you guys continued taking courses in stats/econometrics/linear algebra etc etc. or is that really only a 1st/2nd year thing?

Yeah I still use math a lot but it is either of the more theoretical side (i.e. using calculus to derive a proof for a specific concept) or very simple plug these numbers into an equation and see what the output is. Not doing a lot of the rate/time/distance calculations, geometry, word problems, working with logs, etc. that you see on the ASTB.

 

[DThompson12]

Hello everyone!

I am relatively new to this site (as you probably can see). I have spent a lot of time going through the different threads and posts trying to find the best study guides and study books that I can purchase.

When I do take the ASTB, I am only taking the OAR portion. As far as study books go, I have seen many people recommend the ARCO GRE/GMAT Math Review (6th edition) for math and the OAR Study Guide by Accepted, Inc. specifically for the mechanical section. Also, several people have recommended the ASTB-E Study Guide by Accepted, Inc. What are your thoughts on these books?

As far as reading comprehension goes, are there any specific books or study guides that you recommend?

I would greatly appreciate your comments and feedback. Thank you!

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

I thought the Accepted Book was kind of crappy, I liked the Barron's 3rd Edition much better (seemed to be more accurate to what the material on the test was actually like).

 

[flynavy830]

I thought the Accepted Book was kind of crappy, I liked the Barron's 3rd Edition much better (seemed to be more accurate to what the material on the test was actually like).

To be honest, the Accepted book feels like they rushed to make a book and make a little money. It has no explanations for practice tests, and the math explanations are laughable at best. It shows you how to add a simple fraction like 1/2+ 2/5 and then moves on to the next section. I have some old Barron's books from a friend (2nd edition) and its way better in my opinion. At least it goes into depth on how the answer was calculated. I haven't taken the new ASTB yet so I'll definitely report a further opinion after.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

To be honest, the Accepted book feels like they rushed to make a book and make a little money. It has no explanations for practice tests, and the math explanations are laughable at best. It shows you how to add a simple fraction like 1/2+ 2/5 and then moves on to the next section. I have some old Barron's books from a friend (2nd edition) and its way better in my opinion. At least it goes into depth on how the answer was calculated. I haven't taken the new ASTB yet so I'll definitely report a further opinion after.

Exactly the way I felt. They rushed to publish it that they were forced to re-release a revised edition something like a month later because the first was so chock-full of errors. Even then I still caught a few errors in my revised edition.