<p>@An0maly: but aren’t the SAT IIs designed to show colleges your knowledge in a subject area? My point is that currently, although there are multiple levels of math in the SAT IIs, there is no way for a student to prove competence in calculus, which is a skill that I would imagine colleges would consider a sign of high mathematical ability.</p>
<p>^ An understanding of proof and logic is far more representative of mathematical ability than rote memorization of all the basic differentiation rules.</p>
<p>
Curves, curves, and curves. People here seem to forget that the current SAT math section is scored on an unbelievably steep curve. If this is adjusted to correspond with the difficulty of the exam, the middling scores should retain the distribution that they currently have.</p>
<p>By the way, my suggestion isn’t that every single question on the math exam is made to be challenging. But I do think that several, perhaps 8-10, reasonably challenging questions should be added to the exam while the difficulty of the vast majority of the remaining questions remains the same. And I’m not even talking high-level AMC questions, more like low-middling AMC questions. There is enough difference in the difficulty of the AMC and the current SAT for many questions of this caliber to exist.</p>
<p>@noimagination: Subject tests are almost by definition tests of rote memorization, the history ones being the prime examples.</p>
<p>SAt math makes you make stupid mistakes.</p>
<p>CR has random vocab on the test.</p>
<p>That’s why the ACT is a much better test. It tests mathematical knowledge without a hugely steep curve and without tripping people on random answers.</p>
<p>Reading\Science is better than CR on the SAT.</p>
<p>
I have made this argument many times and have only been dismissed for it – even though it is a legitimate point. I often find myself mixing numbers together accidentally and using wrong numbers in very simplistic calculations. The ACT completely avoids that by not trying to throw a bunch of numbers at the test taker, but instead, making the last few questions more challenging; There is also a range of question difficulties on the ACT so the curve is distributed fairly.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with your CR anaylsis though. It has unecessary vocabulary on it that doesn’t have any college success value. Not only are there like 5-8 straightforward vocabulary questions at the beginning of the section, there are also many vocabulary phrases (analytical detachment, etc) that require even more extensive vocabularic knowledge in the passages.</p>
<p>^ Perhaps the CR section is occasionally skewed by the arbitrary appearance of esoteric vocabulary words, but as a whole the section holds a much higher ceiling and is a more accurate indicator in terms of expressing ability than the math section (considering the CR section’s more detailed curve).</p>
<p>I have yet to take the ACT nor have I taken practice ACT questions, but if your description is accurate then, yes, that is what I would like the SAT math section to tend toward. The problem is that I have heard the ACT labeled as a test of speed which may compromise its capability to show comprehension, and that is something I think the SAT should avoid, to a degree.</p>
<p>And don’t get me wrong; I do enjoy, to a degree, the nuances and the deceptions on the SAT. What I dislike is when its questions become merely just that and offer very little indication of real comprehension and ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but knowledge == competency. There are many students who could Ti-89 their way through Math II and probably pass AP Calculus, but would struggle to solve a single problem from a real calculus book like Spivak. A deep understanding of calculus is indeed a good sign of mathematical ability, but it’s already agreed that the AP math’s and subject tests do not discern mathematical ability. Exams like the AMC/AIME/USAMO measure that much better.</p>
<p>
Yes, I agree. But that doesn’t explain why it would be useful to have a calculus subject test.</p>
<p>The SAT is supposed to be a test of reasoning. The mathematics section evaluates not only if you have mathematical aptitude, but if you are able to logically and reasonably solve the questions in the section, and avoid major pitfalls which are usually errors in logical reasoning. Honestly, all of the math on the SAT is known by the typical 8th grader, so it’s not really a math aptitude test like the AP exams or something.</p>
<p>It’s not really meant to be indicative of your math skills; your grades and any scores on the AP exams that you may have taken are more indicative of that. There are plenty of advanced calculus students who may get lower SAT scores than someone who hasn’t progressed based trig. If a school wants to know your actual math aptitude, they’ll look at your math grades and require you to take one of the math subject tests. It is, like Arachnotron pointed out, “the ability to use the given tools in creative ways that matters.”</p>
<p>I got the answer to the question the exact same way that Arachnotron did. It’s not just a “counting question” made to trip you up. The arithmetic involved is simple. It’s about your approach. I don’t know if I would’ve approached this question the same way before I went to college, but this is the kind of reasoning and problem-solving ability they want to see if you have before you come, so they can develop it further.</p>
<p>Noimagination, I’m not sure I get your point about the differences in scaling and curve, partially because I’m not really convinced there’s a huge difference between a student with a 720M (95th percentile) and one with a 780M (99th percentile).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t “make” anyone do anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they’re random. If they told you ahead of time which words would be on the test, it wouldn’t be much of a challenge. Most of the words, however, do appear with frequency in most good literature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i.e., most of the questions can be solved by plugging numbers into formulas? That’s not my definition of a reasoning test. SAT math is by no means perfect, but at least it requires some logical steps and clarity of thought.</p>
<p>
Here’s what I’m saying: the SAT Math section is currently so easy for so many people that ETS has used a curve steep enough to make the difference between the very top scores negligible. As such, the SAT Math is essentially worthless when comparing the very top applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, while that maybe true, it is not the purpose of the test – it is not designed to compare the very top math applicants. That’s like saying the CR is “worthless” for comparing very top poets.</p>
<p>
Again, my whole argument in this thread is that the purpose of the test is misguided and should be realigned. Look, I know a few people who are pretty average on the SAT. There isn’t anything wrong with that. Do you know where they’re applying? Universities with very lax admissions standards. There isn’t anything wrong with that either. But these colleges do not need to know whether a 520 is different from a 580. It just doesn’t matter, because they will admit the applicant either way. More selective schools that actually reject qualified applicants are the ones that would benefit from understanding the fine differences between applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, your argument is misguided. Highly selective schools do not care if a student is an 800 or a 1,000 (new scale, harder test). They only care if you are above 700 (or 750+ for HPSM). It’s kinda like a minimum threshold that the unhooked need to pass, and then it’s on to other stuff in the application, such as ECs and essays and recs.<br>
</p>
<p>That’s the point. If they wanted such a test, they’d ask for it, Math 3? or something similar. But they don’t ask for it bcos they don’t see any benefit.</p>
<p>IMO, you are placing too much emphasis on the testing. Remember the old saw: great scores won’t get you in, but can keep you out.</p>
<p>
While it would be difficult to speculate specifics, I would wager that the number of “very top” math applicants is at least tenfold the number of “very top” poets. The two are incomparable, partly because of the international population that takes the test that is well-seasoned in math (alas, it is the universal language) but not stellar in reading abilities. Hence there is a much greater demand for a math exam that encompasses strong math students because this demographic represents a much larger proportion and quantity of its respective subject than the “top poet” demographic.</p>
<p>And again…whereas the difference in ability and reasoning is well-defined between a 700 CR scorer and an 800 CR scorer, there is quite often little difference, in any, of either skill between a 700 M scorer and an 800 M scorer.</p>
<p>
I imagine this is largely true BECAUSE the current test is so variable at the top end.</p>
<p>
Top colleges, even those that aren’t HYPSM, want more than 700 per section. Hell, Columbia’s 25th percentile for admits (a level largely reserved for hooked applicants) for cumulative SAT score was 2110 (source: [Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)). I’ve spoken to athletic coaches of various schools and they’ve indicated that the higher the SAT score, the less athletic ability an athlete needs to have in order to get recruited. Any notions of the SAT merely being a minimum threshold are completely false. And because colleges are putting significant weight into the math section of the SAT, it is imperative that the math section is made so that those with higher scores are, the vast majority of the time, more capable at math; otherwise it is misleading.</p>
<p>monstor:</p>
<p>Where do you obtain such information? Beside engineering-tech schools, do adcoms tell you that they are "putting significant weight on the math section? Have you seen that in print somewhere?</p>
<p>btw: Don’t place much emphasis on what a coach may tell you. First, they don’t work in admissions. Second, they are more than happy to tip a 800 student to sit on the bench (bcos it raises their team average and enables them to tip the 600 student).</p>
<p>Lol… why would you complain if you get easy questions on the SAT… you want it to be harder? I already have enough things to worry about, I’d rather it be easier than harder. Lol you guys kill me.</p>