An Objective Review of the Grammatix SAT Guide (part 1 of 2)

Test Preparation
21

<p>Hey cryptic,</p>

<p>I understand your defense of something you believe in, but frankly just about any decent tutor who's been teaching SAT prep for a while can get in the 750-800 range on every test (there are lots of lousy SAT teachers out there too, but they probably don't have too much experience) All of my teachers could rattle off a 2300+ every time and have plenty of time to reflect on the meaning of life during the test...which just points to the fact that the SAT is learnable.</p>

<p>If Mike's methods worked for you, great! Shout it out. If you disagree with Godot, fine, but respect his opinion. It may be biased, but most of what he say sounds right on to me. A lot of xiggi's point also seem extremely valid, and it's obvious that he's put a lot of thought into what makes a good guide and what makes a bad guide. Remember, though, that we all come to the test with different experience, different skills and different approaches.</p>

22

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I have another long response to post. Please give me a minute to get it up--</p>

<p>Mike</p>

23

<p>Hi Godot,</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to write the review. Thanks also for respecting my rights and not revealing too much--I appreciate it.</p>

<p>Of course, there are places where we differ, and several things I'd like to respond to.</p>

<p>Before I do, I want to add the same preface I did before my long post in the other thread--I'm not going out of my way to sell my Guide here. I <em>am</em> going to defend its methods, because its methods are the topic of discussion. If the CC mods don't think it's an appropriate discussion, I understand that and apologize. On the other hand, since Godot's review and this reply are both ultimately about valid approaches to the SAT, I do think that this discussion is helpful for CCers, and maybe a little more detailed and in-depth than some of the other discussions I've seen in the forum lately.</p>

<p>I also want to point out that, to a large extent, this is a "paths-up-the-mountain" disagreement. I have my path up the SAT mountain, you have yours, Mr. Robinson has his, et cetera. I don't doubt that other paths are valid; I do believe that my path is among the most direct and least complicated. I don't want to sound as though I'm attacking another path; I really just want to defend my own. </p>

<p>I'd like to respond to issues in the order you raised them. (I'd ask anyone reading to continue to the end, because some of the most important issues were brought up last.)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It's not impossible to offer a full review without mentioning specific strategies; you did a fine job. :) It's not impossible to review movies without giving away the twists, and it's not impossible to review restaurants without publishing their recipes.</p></li>
<li><p>I disagree that my Guide does not contain significant amounts of new material and new methods of presenting that material. I've seen most of the other guides, too; at any rate, I assure you that my SAT strategies (like all my test strategies) came entirely out of my own head. I create them by studying the test questions, studying the right and wrong answers, and figuring out what's going on in my own terms. Later, when I'm refining and finalizing the material, I check out other guides (for comparison, not material). While there are bound to be similarities (given enough approaches to the same test), I think my Guide stands apart in several key respects, some of which you noted (and disagreed with, which is of course your right).</p></li>
<li><p>The guessing question has been debated extensively in these forums. I know most of the world disagrees with me on this (it's one of the things that makes my Guide unique--see above). I also know that most of my students agree with me. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "strategic guessing,"--it might actually be close to what I advocate, which is marking answer choices when you're <em>certain</em> you're correct but <em>uncertain</em> exactly what the question is asking you. I'm <em>never</em> in favor of a person saying "I'm not sure whether it's (A) or (B), so I'm gonna put (B) and move on." That, in my experience, is a recipe for failure, for the reasons mentioned in the other thread. I'll stand by that forever, and so will most of my students.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>3.a. For that matter, I should point out that the very first section in my Guide reminds my readers to (1) skip the sections where help isn't needed, and (2) test <em>everything</em> they don't agree with. It's logically possible that a student might actually do better by guessing than by applying my no-guessing strategy. If that's the case, then the student should keep guessing. But he doesn't know for sure what he should do unless he tests both approaches. And, for that matter, most students aren't even aware that my no-guessing approach exists, for reasons detailed in excerpt 2 of my long post on the other thread.</p>

<p>3.b. Just like I don't know anything about your class, and therefore can't make any assumptions about it, you don't know who my students have been, and can't call them average. In my live classes, students have tended to come from top area magnet and private schools, generally far more rigorous than the "average" (whatever that means) high school. They go on to all kinds of schools, from the Ivy League to huge state schools and everything in between. They come to me with scores all over the scale--I've had students start with section scores from 300 to 750. I give all of them the no-guessing advice. The vast majority of them adopt it within a few hours--they can tell it works. Their scores go up. I've had several students with 700+ tell me that the thing that pushed them to a perfect 800 was deciding not to guess any more. I have also had students tell me they went from 900 to 1200 (on the old scale) because they stopped guessing. So, while people may disagree with my advice, and may decide not to follow it, you cannot correctly say that the advice only works for average, untrained students at the lower or middle regions of the scale. The evidence contradicts that.</p>

<p>[see next post]</p>

24

<ol>
<li> I don't believe the essay strategies in my guide are dubious--and, evidently, neither do CB's graders :) As you note, and as I said above, my approach is to examine the essays that the CB has published, and figure out which attributes make for a perfect score. I also played around with the online essay grader that CB.com offers with its subscription service. I found, not really to my surprise, that the published scoring rubric doesn't really match up with the results of the graded samples. (This is discussed in more detail in the guide, as you know.) Also, my goal in advising students on the essay is to come up with a mechanical, uncreative way to generate a perfect-score essay quickly (since you don't have much time to think before writing). So after I analyzed the perfect-score essays, I worked their attributes into a step-by-step process. I then tested the process out on the online grader (which was the only evaluation tool available). It worked. I tested it again on March 12th, and it worked again. So either my way actually works, or all of the following are true: (1) the CB published bogus sample perfect essays, and (2) the online essay-scorer is completely flawed, and (3) my essay graders for the March 12th test were also in on the joke, and decided to play along by giving me a 12. I think it's far more likely that my approach works than it is that all of those sources of feedback are flawed.</li>
</ol>

<p>Further proof of the drawbacks associated with the historical/literary approach comes if you look at the posts from CCers who can't understand why their scores are so low. You'll notice they used mostly historical and literary examples. In some cases, those examples were poorly used and didn't really exemplify the things they were supposed to--which is exactly one of the outcomes I avoid by using my type of examples.</p>

<p>Finally, if the SAT were going to require you to use only historical and literary examples, they'd be biasing the test in favor of people who know their history and literature. This is something we both know they would never do, especially with people like FairTest breathing down their necks about testing discrimination--if CB penalized non-literary and non-historical examples, FairTest would argue (legitimately) that the test penalized URMs. </p>

<p>Granted, if you and I came up with a writing test, it would be a lot different than the one the CB came up with. I think ours would be a lot more intelligent, and would recognize and reward certain higher-level behavior that the CB test mistakenly penalizes. But the problem is that you and I didn't invent the CB essay--the CB did. They did a bad job, but we still have to work with it. The fact that my type of example would be horrible in a real-world essay doesn't mean it won't work perfectly on the SAT.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that historical and literary examples don't work. Of course they can work. The CG has published examples where they worked beautifully. But they're not the <em>only</em> thing that can work, and in my opinion they're not the most efficient things that work.</p>

<p>At any rate, again, it's impossible to state definitively that my type of example doesn't work. The evidence goes the other way--my examples work, and they work well.</p>

<p>(Also, I don't believe I ever advocated a 2-paragraph essay structure, if that was what you were implying. I've re-read that part of the Guide and don't see that anywhere; in addition, the recommended step-by-step process for that section generates a 5-paragraph essay. If anybody <em>did</em> think I was proposing a two-paragraph essay, please email me and let me know what gave that impression so I can change it.)</p>

<ol>
<li> When you talk about my RC approach, you make the same type of backhanded compliment about being "useful for beginners" that you made when you called my students "average" before. While the approach is useful for beginners, it's also useful for advanced students. I used it--and only it--to score an 800 on the March 12th SAT. Previous students used it--and only it--to go from 740V to 800V, and to go from 420V to 680V. It works because it works, whether you're a beginner or not.</li>
</ol>

<p>Also, I agree that the section is "objective," like you said, but I can't help wondering if we both agree on what that word means . . . :)</p>

<p>I recognize, also, that the question and answer types can be divided in different ways. I picked the way I picked because it works for my approach; I have no doubt that your classification scheme works for your approach. I think this is a point, like many of the points in this discussion, where reasonable minds may differ.</p>

<ol>
<li> As to SC, I have no problem with pre-forming the answers; that was the technique that Kaplan made me teach, and it certainly has a following, though it's not what I advocate. But it also has dangers of its own, particularly when a student is looking to guess. I prefer my approach and I'll stand by it.</li>
</ol>

<p>When it comes to vocabulary, I must politely point out that I'm not against memorizing vocabulary out of "pure laziness or just over-confidence." (I mean, really . . . ) I'm against it for a variety of very sound reasons, some of which I'll outline below. But first--it isn't "lazy" to try to teach students to think and analyze on their own. It's much, much harder than handing them a dictionary and a list and telling them to get to work. That's self-evident. If anything, it's intellectually lazy to take the CB at its word and try memorizing thousands of words instead of deconstructing the test and looking for a better way to take it. Now, here's why I'm against memorizing vocabulary:</p>

<p>a. There's absolutely no evidence showing that vocabulary acquisition campaigns in an adult's native language are likely to have any positive, real-world effect. None. (I studied this extensively in college; I'm not just making this up.) The conscious acquisition of vocabulary items works for (1) young children learning any language, and (2) adult learners of foreign languages trying to acquire basic words in the target language. Now, memorizing words and matching them to their definitions is a perfect way to prepare for a vocabulary test in which you will be given words and asked to match them to their definitions. But that isn't what happens on the SAT. The SAT will ask you to use words in context, and many students have difficulty doing this when the definitions they memorized do not immediately lend themselves to the context sentence. There are tons of posts on CC that verify this (or at least there used to be--I haven't looked in a while): Somebody will post a question she can't answer, and then people will debate the answer, usually supporting their conclusions with memorized definitions from Barron's or something; ultimately, it turns out that several people who relied on their memorized definitions are wrong because they don't know how to fit the memorized information into a real-world usage.</p>

<p>b. Along the same lines, many students memorize words incorrectly, resulting in the sort of awkward usage that makes it more difficult for them to write high-scoring essays and identify idiomatic sentence errors. When you don't try to memorize the words in the first place, you can largely avoid this.</p>

<p>c. Most of the words that most students memorize never appear on the test. Xiggi has proven this repeatedly, and much more thoroughly than I can. This means most of the time spent memorizing words is basically wasted as far as the SAT is concerned.</p>

<p>d. No matter how many words you memorize, there will be times on the SAT when you encounter words you don't know. When that happens, you're going to need some strategies for answering questions without knowing what the words mean. And if you're going to need those strategies anyway, why not just rely on them exclusively? That way you can hone your abilities through practice, and when you come to an SC question with an unknown word you're still in familiar territory. Contrast that with the situation a memorizer is in when she comes upon words she's never seen--she panics and loses time instead of sticking to the game plan and answering the question.</p>

<p>Now, again, I'm fully aware that most tutors support memorization. That's their right. I also believe you when you say that your approach raises scores significantly and involves memorization. It is totally possible to memorize words and do better on the SAT; people say they do it all the time. But I respectfully insist that's not the only way to do it. Most of my students prefer my way, and use it to improve their scores. You simply can't say my way doesn't work--it does.</p>

<p>Also, when it comes to RR, I don't know which strategies you're referring to, so I can't tell you whether I think they're valid or not. But the same thing applies that I mentioned above--if people are using them and they work, then they work. That's all we can say. I will say that I don't think my approach lacks anything--it shows you how to handle each question on a real SAT--but if RR has stuff that I don't, then I guess that's one more path up the mountain.</p>

<p>[see next post]</p>

25

<ol>
<li> I think you completely misconstrued my math section; maybe I need to re-draft parts of it. I didn't intend that any part of the "toolbox" should be new or shocking material--it's just basic math, and it's been roughly the same for centuries. I included all of those basic mathematical facts because I want to spell out exactly which concepts the CB is allowed to use when it asks a question. I want students to realize that the pieces of an SAT math question are actually very fundamental; if they know all the things in the toolbox, then they know enough to answer every SAT math question they'll ever see. That's what I was going for. And if you look at it that way--not as a review section but as an arsenal of discrete principles that can be used to construct an answer to any SAT Math question--I think it goes from seeming like shallow filler to playing a major role in preparing for the Math section. Simply put, a student who knows all of those principles (most students, and certainly most CCers, will know most of those elements) knows all the SAT Math she needs, and can start working on strategy.</li>
</ol>

<p>And I definitely believe that every math question can be done in 30 seconds. I stand by that as well. But as I say in the guide, this doesn't mean that you're a moron if you can't do it that quickly. All students, myself included, lose their cool at one point or another and can't figure out the fastest way to work a problem. (On the March 12 test, I took seven minutes to figure out a 3-second solution because my brain decided to shut off--it happens.) I point out the 30 seconds rule because I want students to keep it foremost in their minds--there IS a simple solution to every question, no matter how hopeless it might seem at the time.</p>

<p>As to the "managing complexity" questions--you can't really tell me I should trust the College Board's idea about the SAT?!? :) Let's see--the Essay test test doesn't test writing ability (see above), SAT grammar isn't real grammar (see below), Critical Reading questions don't test your ability to read critically, et cetera. The CB is largely clueless when it comes to their own test. Luckily, they're extremely consistent in designing and grading it, but when it comes to having any idea how it actually works, I have to say that I never trust them. (In fact, my Guide has a section specifically dedicated to the question of when you can trust the CB and when you can't, as you know.) So they can say a type of math question involves "managing complexity" if they want--that doesn't make it true. Besides, a question that takes 30 seconds to answer is still more complex than one that takes 5, relatively speaking--that doesn't mean it's actually complex in the way, for example, an IB math question is.</p>

<p>Now, of course, we can "test" this if you want by having you post real SAT questions that you say can't be done in 30 seconds; I'll post the solution I say took me thirty seconds; we'll disagree over whether I'm telling the truth and whether other students could do the same thing. That won't get us anywhere. So you'll pretty much have to take my word for it, or decide not to. But, again, tons of students agree with me--it's not a "marketing ploy." And I didn't encounter a single question on the March 12 SAT that should have taken a person longer than 30 seconds.</p>

<p>As to whether the strategies are "killer" or not--they address every SAT Math question. They do it in under thirty seconds, once you learn how to apply them. I don't know what else you want--this is my path up the math mountain, a lot of people agree that it works, and it's pretty easy and direct.</p>

<ol>
<li> For the Writing MC questions, I think you've misunderstood me again. I don't start with a discussion of parts of speech--I start with another toolbox, similar to the Math one, that contains every single piece of grammar information you need for the SAT Writing section. It's not necessarily supposed to be a review, although it may very well be for many students. It's a list of tools. If you can use all of those tools, then you can answer any SAT Writing MC question correctly. If you already know them all, then you can skip them.</li>
</ol>

<p>Granted, it goes into a little more detail than the Math toolbox, because most high school students in America are not taught formal grammar. For example, I need to explain what a copular verb is more urgently than I need to explain what a number is.</p>

<p>Before I can further defend my approach, I need to explain something about grammar that may not be common knowledge. The word "grammar," in its most basic and most academic sense, simply refers to the rules that govern a language. These rules determine everything from the orders of specific sounds to the use of certain suffixes to what counts as politeness or rudeness. We can talk about "descriptive" grammar and "prescriptive" grammar; the first type of grammar tries to figure out the rules that govern people's everyday speech, and the second type tries to <em>set</em> the rules that people should follow (but typically don't unless they try). From a descriptive perspective, the sentence "It ain't about that" is totally flawless if it's something that a native English speaker says; from a prescriptive perspective, we might say such a sentence doesn't use "proper" English.</p>

<p>Understood in that sense, most SAT Writing questions have multiple answer choices that are <em>descriptively</em> acceptable--in other words, multiple answer choices that you might actually hear a native speaker of English say. So you can't just teach the "grammar" that people use when they speak English, or you won't get anywhere. (In fact, just a couple days ago I got an email asking what a person should do when more than one answer is grammatically correct. That's exactly what I'm talking about--the question isn't whether an answer choice is grammatically correct, but whether it's acceptable to the SAT, as I describe below.)</p>

<p>Instead, you have to teach the SAT's own brand of (largely arbitrary) <em>prescriptive</em> rules. Most of these rules can only be understood if we just take them for granted--they contradict things that educated English speakers say all the time. That's just the way it is.</p>

<p>Having said all of that--the reason I provide "bad" and "good" patterns is because that's the easiest way to attack the test: break it down into the list of possible errors, and learn to recognize them. I don't know why you say there are no illustrative sentences; there are pages and pages of them, and each one is prefaced with a sentence like "This is an okay SAT sentence," or "This sentence is wrong on the SAT."</p>

<p>As to the bad pattern with the "blatant error"--could you email me that one? This is the first I've heard of it.</p>

<p>I stand by that list, and disagree that there are better ones all over the place. I've seen most of those lists, and they work fine if you already know basic formal grammar--but most people don't. My section takes a person who doesn't know anything about formal grammar and builds them all the way up to the SAT's level--of course, if you already know something about grammar, then you can jump in and only cover the things you don't understand, so you don't waste your time.</p>

<p>As for the wrong answer patterns and processes for the individual question types, my response is the same as it has been for each section: these are all the ones I need to answer every SAT question. They're all the ones my students have reported needing. I used them on March 12 and did very well with them. They work. Again, other things might work too, I don't know--I just know this works and you can learn it quickly.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Thanks for seeing the value of the illustrative solutions. I do all the questions of a type in one test section from a real test. I take them as they come, using the strategies from the Guide as they apply. The reasons I don't provide more solutions, or pick and choose the solutions, is twofold: (1) There aren't that many practice tests in the Blue Book, so I don't want to use them up as examples, and (2) students can always email me and request solutions for any SAT question, so if they can't figure out how to apply the technniques than I can still show them individually.</p></li>
<li><p>I respectfully disagree that you like my Guide :) You seem not to like it at all, which is certainly fine by me. It seems a little strange to go through the review slighting the Guide and my students, citing "blatant errors," and saying my advice is "wrong," and then conclude that it's a "good guide and one of the better ones out there." This is another place where reasonable minds can differ. Other people do think it's the best and most complete guide they've seen, and if a person doesn't like the material--that's why God invented refund policies :) I certainly wrote it with the goal of producing a complete Guide to the test supported by expert advice (minus practice questions, of course, but that's unavoidable).</p></li>
</ol>

<p>[see next post]</p>

26

<ol>
<li> I don't understand the non-intuitive charge. It strikes me as a little self-contradictory--how can you fault the Guide for not breaking any ground at the same time that you fault it for not following tradition? But let's leave that aside.</li>
</ol>

<p>The question is whether non-intuitive thinking is inherently good or bad. It's neither. There are many times when intuition serves a person well, and many times when it convinces him to sign up for a Kaplan class. The important thing is to consider an idea on its own merit, test it, and keep what works. That's it.</p>

<p>I don't set out to be non-intuitive for its own sake; that would be stupid. I set out to find the easiest, fastest way to beat a test. What I find is often non-intuitive, but that's really just another way of saying it's an atypical solution to a common problem. If the approach I had found were typical, then I wouldn't have written my Guide--there'd be no need for it.</p>

<p>The "intuitive" response to the problem presented by the SAT is, for most people, to panic and worry, and to expect the test to be difficult and well-designed. That's the intuitive response, but if that's your response to the SAT you're giving it way too much credit. The SAT is poorly designed, easily exploitable, and really not difficult once you understand it. Why is it bad to point that out when it's so obviously true? I prove this over and over in the Guide, but a few pieces of evidence are in order here again:</p>

<p>--If the SAT were what we "intuitively" expect it to be, then people with straight A's would always do well. They don't always.</p>

<p>--If the SAT were what we "intuitively" expect it to be, then the people who succeeded in their college careers would be the people who did well on the SAT. They aren't always.</p>

<p>--If the SAT were what we "intuitively" expect it to be, then all the bright CCers on this board who prep from the 7th grade and memorize vocabulary would get perfect scores. Not all of them do.</p>

<p>So, in short--I agree that my approach may not be intuitive. But I disagree that that has anything to do with whether my Guide is good or not.</p>

<p>Further, as I've noted throughout, the strategies in my Guide are not dubious and wrong. They work. I used them, and only them, on March 12, to get my 790-800-790-12 score (as noted in the other thread, I made minor errors in the application of my strategies that kept me from getting the 2400 I got on the practice tests, but that's a fault in me, not in the strategies themselves). My students have used them, and only them, on the old test and done very well. CCers have reported improving from them. They show you how to handle every real SAT question. I don't know how you can say they're "wrong"--they might not be what you use, but there's more than one way to skin the test.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You're right that the best advice is often tried-and-true. In fact, by definition, anything that has been tried in the past and found to be true is worth using. But many of the SAT preparation methods out there are "tried and false," not tried and true. How many students have to tell me they tried to memorize vocabularly lists to no avail before you'll let me say that memorizing vocabulary lists doesn't always work? By the same logic, how many students have to tell me my Guide works before you'll decide that they've "tried" it and it's "true"?</p></li>
<li><p>The Guide is definitely worth the price--students have even told me they think I should charge more for it. There are a variety of reasons I think this, but here's the biggest one, and it's very important (I don't want to list all of them because I feel like I'm trying to sell something when I talk about price, and that isn't my goal here): When you buy my Guide, you don't just get the material in there; you get unlimited access to me, and you can ask me anything SAT-related you want (in the near future, I'll also make it possible for people to give me personal statements for review and commenting, which is another valuable service). In other words, for the $50 I charge, you can have expert advice on every aspect of the SAT. If you put the time in to mail me your questions and read my responses, this is an outright steal. The people on this board must surely know this. Frankly, I wouldn't even tutor a person one-on-one for an hour for $50; neither would most higher-level SAT tutors. So for the cost of less than one hour of my time face-to-face, you can have unlimited hours of my time via email. Students and parents recognize that for the deal that it is, or I wouldn't still be doing this.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Here's an experiment for the people on this board: Take your copies of RR and PR, and send emails directly to the authors of those guides detailing all the questions you have. Then give the email addresses to your parents and tell them to send in their questions. Now wait for the answers. They'll probably never come. Now, those books together probably cost you around $50, and you're not even getting any personal attention. How is that a better deal?</p>

<ol>
<li> Again, I take issue with the suggestion that my approach only works for beginners. My students have come from all points on the scale, and have increased their scores by using the same approach. If you think about it, it has to work that way if a particular approach can really address all SAT questions--as you learn it, no matter what your previous score was, you approach the highest possible score.</li>
</ol>

<p>As I keep saying, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. But I don't want to leave the impression that my students have all been low-scoring beginners, or that my feedback and quotes come from low-scoring beginners. That's just not the case. Some of them came from low-scoring beginners, and some of them came from people who thought they had maxed out at 1530.</p>

<p>[see next post]</p>

27

<ol>
<li><p>I don't know why you feel that only certain people are qualified to judge an SAT Guide. Anyone who's taking the test can do it fine. The test of an SAT Guide is whether it gets you a higher score quickly and easily. If it does, then it's a good Guide. If it doesn't, then it isn't. Can't anyone decide that on their own? Why arrogate to yourself the responsibility of telling people what works for them? The parents and students in this world are smart enough to know if something helps them. Think about it--by saying that you're the most qualified person to decide that my advice is "dubious" and "wrong," you're essentially suggesting that thousands of people who have relied on that advice to their advantage were too stupid to know that I wasn't actually helping them. That's ridiculous.</p></li>
<li><p>Ultimately, this wasn't really an "objective review" so much as it was a broadside of another educator's SAT method. You don't have to like my approach. That's fine. I'm sure a lot of people don't like it--and a lot of people do. But you can't make assertions that are obviously contradicted by readily available evidence and expect me not to stick up for my approach.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Still and all, thanks again for posting your views. I benefited from reading them, even if I don't agree with most of them.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>PS I agree with rmac--I really don't want to bicker here. I know my approach works, and I believe you when you say yours does. I just wanted to point out what I considered to be factual inaccuracies. Frankly, if we never talk about this again I'm fine with it :)</p>

28

<p>I just started reading through Mike's book a few minute's ago, and these are my opinions so far. Essay advice is very good. I totally agree with him there. After seeing most of my friends who took Kaplan or PR get 6-8 on their essays when they were getting 12s from the graders at these companies, I came to the conclusion the SAT must have some sort of rubric they aren't sharing. I see a LOT of similarities from the essays other top scorers have posted on CC to Mike's sample. I'm not going to spell them out for Mike's sake, but if you haven't noticed them yet, (I started to, and his guide only confirmed it), this could be very helpful. Now I'm on to CR, the one section I have the most trouble. I hope it can make a difference.</p>

<p>As far as guessing is concerned, I totally disagree with Mike however. Not guessing is good for people who are bad guessers, not for ones who are good guessers. Especially in the case of people who only miss 1-2 questions on a section, you may as well guess. Getting 2 wrong is the same as leaving 2 blank. So for high scorers, guessing is a very good idea if you are sure you aced the rest of the section. Also, if you can eliminate 1-2 answers, you should definitely guess. I see what Mike is saying with them tricking you, but you can avoid that by deciding before the test, all the ones I don't know, I will mark C, and if I know C is wrong, I will mark B, no matter what the choice. This way you should statistically answer 1 out of 3 if you can narrow down the choices by two. You will then get 2 wrong, and 1 right, which will put you ahead of the game. **Don't however, pick which one you think is right. If you have it narrowed down to 3, always pick a random answer.</p>

29

<p>so this is what makes a lawyer. =)</p>

<p>i'll finish reading later. maybe i'll just by both books. =)</p>

30

<p>Hi Devils,</p>

<p>Good point about the guessing. I never thought of what you just said--it seems like a promising alternative. But what if you know (C) and (B) are both wrong?</p>

<p>I think by doing what you say (always the random answer) you'd be avoiding one of the major guessing pitfalls I talked about. That's a good idea.</p>

<p>I'm still anti-guessing, but like I said--if your way works, I'd stick with it if I were you.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

31

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Thank you for your VERY detailed and thoughtful response. In fact, it's so detailed that I simply don't have the time to fully answer your points right now. You bring up some very good points, and if you read my review AGAIN thoroughly, you might find that I actually DON'T disagree on many things you bring up. It seems that you assumed certain things from my review and misinterpreted some parts as well. I stand by my review. It's ONE person's opinion, and notice that I NEVER monopolized the responsibility or the ability to judge your book. I know that, among the various students you work with, there are some VERY capable students who are not "average" (you misinterpreted what I wrote), and I never meant to suggest that you ONLY work with "average" or below-average students.</p>

<p>I have to say that I expected some defense on your part, naturally, since you need to protect your reputation and your product, but I didn't quite expect such a reaction from you. Perhaps you get the sense that I really hate your book, and I can see why you might think that. I admit I was critical, but then again, I can be critical with a lot of things, but STILL like the person or thing. In the end, overall, I still like your book, and I maintain that it's one of the better guides out there. No, I don't think it's THE best SAT book I've seen, but that doesn't have to mean that I hate it, does it??</p>

<p>One quick point I want to address with the "managing complexity" argument is that just because CB might get some things wrong or mislead the students on their own test, it does not mean that they get ALL things wrong or you can't trust them on anything. I am CERTAIN that there are math questions YOU cannot do in less than 30 seconds, and I can prove it to you by having you on the phone and giving you selected questions to do on the spot. And I'll issue a challenge to ANY student on this site. If you can HONESTLY do the questions I name in under 30 seconds, without having seen the question at all before -- and you are NOT one of the top in the nation in math -- I will retract my statement that it's not true that all math questions can be done in under 30 seconds. I DO like your encouraging the students to look for a "30-second" solution -- it's how to do math questions intelligently, after all -- but to make a blanket statement like "Do ANY math question in under 30 seconds" is a little irresponsible, because it's not COMPLETELY true (although it's mostly true).</p>

<p>As you say, there are different paths up the mountain. I have my path; you have yours. Your way, for all I know, might work just as well, but I know that what I give my students works VERY well. So we might both be right. I don't think I was overly harsh in critiquing your book, and I think the readers of CC deserved a frank and open review from me. THEY can judge the books for themselves, too. Guys, if you LOVE Mike's book, I say use it. Don't take my word for it. At the same time, some people were asking for a review, so I gave it. I put the time into writing a long and full review, so I hope EVERYONE appreciates my time and effort. It's MY opinion -- no one else's -- and I think I am entitled to it. I stand by my review -- both the good and the bad. Notice I actually advised some people to buy your book at the end. I think that if YOU -- and everyone else -- read my review fully and with an open mind, you'll find that my criticism -- and praise -- are pretty dead-on and valid. But even if not, I think it will at least serve as one more thoughtful review in the pool of existing reviews to guide potential customers' decisions effectively.</p>

<p>Just to let some people know, the "objective" in the title was really tongue-in-cheek. Of course, it's subjective! It must be, but I did aim to be balanced in my comments. And I think it's ludicrous that someone would charge that I wrote the review because I was "jealous" of Mike. If that were true, I would also be jealous of Adam Robinson, which does not explain why I gave Mr. Robinson's book a more positive evaluation than Mike's. And I'm very confident I can score a 2400 on the new SAT. As PeteSAT commented, ANY SAT tutor worth his salt should be able to score a 2300+. I can't GUARANTEE one, but I know that I would not be far from a 2400 on an official exam. And that might be why no tutor or SAT company took the challenge Mike issued -- the difference between the scores would be so minute and entirely due to luck that it'd be crazy to concede that your program is inferior just because you scored a 2370 next to Mike's 2380. I would not personally do the challenge for that reason alone.</p>

<p>Mike, I respect you as an author and fellow contributor on this site, but it seems like you only drop in to market or defend your book and rarely or never to give free advice (free advice to your paying customers doesn't count, obviously). I hang out on this site not to advertise my business, but to learn and see if I can help out some students, free of charge. I have all the business I can handle right now. Despite all of that, I applaud you for writing your book and all the effort and time that went into it. I'm sure it's helped many students so far, and I'm sure they are grateful. If I can give you a word of advice, however, it would be to take constructive criticism -- and that is what I think I have offered you in my review -- in a much more responsive and positive way and not be so defensive to all criticism. The former attitude can only help you. The defensive stance is natural and understandable, especially in the case of a book that probably earns you a living, but I don't think it's particularly healthy. I know that I have personally been criticized for various things in my work and other areas, and although criticism can definitely be painful sometimes, I know that by receiving it with an open and responsive attitude, it's helped me grow as a tutor and professional and human being virtually every time.</p>

<p>I'll respond with more specific commentary when I get some more time.</p>

32

<p>I think that anyone posting a long post should include a 5 sentance summary at the bottom of each post for people who can't read a novel very fast.</p>

33

<p>Gigante,</p>

<p>Learn speed reading. :)</p>

34

<p>I can barely read, much less with speed. This is why I'm not going to college.</p>

35

<p>Can it be recommended to create a new style that works for yourself, by combining strategies that work for you from different authors?</p>

36

<p>smartboybynd,</p>

<p>Of course! In fact, that's what you SHOULD do. Read all the SAT books out there that you want, try everything, and then keep what you like and throw away what you don't like or what doesn't work. Watch out for coming up with "hybrid" strategies, though. You don't necessarily want to combine parts of one strategy with those of another.</p>

37

<p>To smartboy--</p>

<p>I agree with godot. The best way to approach any problem is to make it your own, and the problem of beating the SAT is no different. I also agree that there's potential danger when you mix 'n' match indiscriminately, but, like Godot said, if you're testing everything out and discarding what doesn't work, you should be fine. Best of luck to you--</p>

<p>Mike</p>

38

<p>I myself like Grammatix's writing strategies, at least for the sentance error. I need to figure out what to do for Paragraph error, and then for CR I use a combination of similar stuff to grammatix and testmasterz, and then for my essay some RocketReview/testmasterz/grammatix depending on which part of my essay.</p>

<p>So feel free to mix and match what works best for you.</p>

39

<p>I've heard about Testmasterz here and there but where can I get it?</p>

40

<p>Hi Godot,</p>

<p>Thanks for responding to my response :) . I don't want to keep fighting back and forth about this, and while I look forward to any further comments you might have to make, I don't anticipate making any more long posts unless the Irish in me just won't let me keep my mouth shut.</p>

<p>BUT . . . I can't help but point out that you're doing it again, even in your most recent post to me. You have directly accused me of being dishonest and exploiting CC for my own gain. Well, I don't huddle in front of my computer, constantly scanning CC for some mention of my Guide so I can pounce on it to keep food on my table. Like you, I have plenty of other business--I don't need to strong-arm people into buying from me. Again, a simple review of the facts proves this:</p>

<p>When I first came to CC, it was at the invitation of Xiggi, who had reviewed an earlier version of my Guide. He is, as we all know, a very upstanding young man, and I think he thought it was only fair to invite me to read his review in these forums. Before that I had never even heard of CC. I don't know if you can find those old posts or not, but if you can, I'm sure they'll prove that I only answered people's questions about my materials. I remember having a discussion about guessing that was similar to the one that's taken place here. I also remember some people saying the old Math section was a little thin, which is one of the things I tried to correct in the new version because I actually do take advice from people when it's good advice (see below). At any rate, if you look at the posts from that period you'll see I hung around for weeks or months (can't remember exactly) and contributed wherever I could to discussions I actually knew something about. In fact, I distinctly remember flubbing the monty hall problem for all situations where there are four or more doors, agreeing to an incorrect solution for when there are three doors, and never going back to correct the error. That didn't generate any sales. I didn't care--that wasn't the point. Of course, ultimately I stopped posting; I was starting up a business and planning on moving to Hungary for a year, and I really didn't have much Internet time outside of servicing customers. I only came <em>back</em> to the board this last time because I received another email telling me my material was being discussed again. Once more, if you look at the Grammatix thread you'll see I don't make an appearance until, I believe, the second page. I didn't start that discussion, and I wouldn't have jumped in if I hadn't been notified about the discussion and if somebody else hadn't been "accused" of being me. If you search the posts for the word "grammatix," you'll see several times when the subject was raised and I didn't come flying in to pitch my stuff. I didn't even start <em>this</em> thread--you did. I'm only replying. And like I said before, if you want to drop this discussion I'll be thrilled. I'm planning on dropping it unilaterally anyhow, unless, like I said before, I have to defend my students against charges that they are illiterate dupes, and defend myself against being called "lazy" and "wrong" in the absence of evidence. As for why I haven't posted much advice this time around outside of the Grammatix threads, the CCers just haven't been discussing things I know anything about. I never took AP Bio, I don't know how they do the commended scholars letters anymore, and the only math pickup line I know is "It must be less than 90 degrees in here, cuz you sure look acute to me," and it isn't funny so I didn't contribute it.</p>

<p>Now, you might say I'm being overly defensive, like you said when I wrote my earlier post. I disagree. This time, you accused me of only showing up in CC when it works to my advantage. The fact that you used words like "seem", prefaced the remark by telling me how much you respect me (which makes no sense--why respect somebody you think is wrong, lazy, and exploitative?), and tried to couch the accusation as a piece of paternal advice doesn't change the fact that it was clearly an accusation. I won't stand accused of things that aren't true. If that makes me overly defensive, then I guess you're right. Personally, I think it means I stick up for myself. I haven't attacked you in any way. I believe you when you say your way works for your students, and I haven't impugned your integrity just because you seem to have chosen a class format that I dislike.</p>

<p>Similarly, when you say my advice is wrong and chalk our differences up to my "laziness or overconfidence," you have to expect me to protest that I'm not lazy or overconfident, no matter how much you incongruously insist that you actually like my work. This is not merely a difference of opinion--it's an accusation that I'm lazy, overconfident, and/or wrong. And again, when I can disprove this by referring to facts that are readily available to anyone who reads this, you have to expect me to do that.</p>

<p>I also take my relationship with my students very seriously, as I'm sure you do when it comes to your own students. They put their trust in me, and they see fit to part with their money for my advice. I don't take that lightly. When you say that you're uniquely qualified in this forum to judge the quality of my advice (which is exactly what you said, whether you meant to or not); and when you say that portions of that advice are lacking, wrong, or dubious; you are ultimately doubting the intelligence and savvy of my students and customers, who find the advice valuable. It's an inescapable conclusion, especially when you say that certain strategies would only work for untrained beginners or the average student. Again, such assertions aren't merely statements of your opinion. They are subtle but clear accusations. And my students deserve to have me stand up for them. So I did.</p>

<p>Finally, I don't need advice on how to conduct my life. Nobody in this forum wants to be told how to become a better human being. This is a place for people to help each other get into college, and it's a very good tool, but nobody comes here for general life advice. Not that this concerns you in any way, but I already have a good stable of role models and advisors whom I trust implicitly and whose advice always weighs heavily in my decisions. I'm not currently interviewing for any open positions in that regard. I don't tell you how I think you could be a better person--I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me, either.</p>

<p>I have no problem with criticism. No businessman should. For example, when you say that you prefer pre-forming to my SC approach, and that my approach has certain dangers, you're absolutely right. That's a valid criticism. When you say my essay-writing advice is wrong, that's NOT valid criticism--it's a falsehood that can be, and should be, corrected. Criticize me all you want. Nothing is perfect. But like I keep saying, you can't call me lazy and expect me not to point out that the accusation is unfounded.</p>

<p>So anyhow--I look forward to reading any future posts, and I politely ask you not to attack my character or my students' collective intelligence. I've shown you as much courtesy. There's no reason for this discussion to continue the slide into personal attacks that it has recently started.</p>

<p>Mike</p>