<p>According to the Barron's SAT book, 23rd edition, there are no combinations or permutations on the SAT. </p>
<p><a href="http://i.min.us/ieqKvG.png%5B/url%5D">http://i.min.us/ieqKvG.png</a></p>
<p>Ah - so there are no combination or permutation problems on the SAT. Thank you Barron's for saving me a ton of time!</p>
<p>Wait just one second... </p>
<p>Barron's SAT 2400 COVERS combinations or permutations! </p>
<p><a href="http://i.min.us/ieu8Uc.png%5B/url%5D">http://i.min.us/ieu8Uc.png</a> </p>
<p>Conspiracy Theory #1</p>
<p>Most people will first buy the regular Barron's book b/c their scores are not close to 2400. That's the prevailing logic on CC - if your scoring below 700, get Book A; above 700, get Book B. </p>
<p>Problem is, even if you learn everything in the regular Barron's book, you won't have covered permutations and combinations (which do show up on the SAT). Your score will never reach 2400. Your score will hit some asymptote before 2400. </p>
<p>Then, frustrated users will go out and purchase another Barron's book - this time Barron's SAT 2400 ... thinking that it will help them go that last mile ... and voila! It does - by covering a topic that the regular Barron's book left out! </p>
<p>Win for Barron's - you just purchased TWO of their books :)! </p>
<p>Any other conspiracy theories out there?</p>
<p>Those test prep companies are really amazing, eh?</p>
<p>I got Barron’s 2400 and i only got a 1680 on my actual SAT, im hoping it will help me with CR + W. I dont think its that much of a conspiracy, just a mistake like many other books have. But they are minor mistakes and since you know that there are combinations and permutations thats good, since you were able to recognize a flaw in the book.</p>
<p>Hmmm… Damn at this rate… Oh no…barrons may have the power to take over the world!</p>
<p>I’ve got four theories on this (and I am a member of the test prep community). </p>
<ol>
<li><p>They don’t want to introduce a new topic to an average student. It’s easier to re-cover topics that students have already learned in high school. A new topic takes too long to cover and might confuse the average student so why bother with it? They won’t get a 2400 anyway. (NOTE: This is not my personal opinion about “advanced” concepts and average students! My book contains permutations and combinations because I think they are essential for SAT prep and I think anyone can quickly learn to solve them.)</p></li>
<li><p>The authors used another company’s book to write this material without actually looking at the SAT to confirm the book’s statements. (We all use and look at each other’s books; I have them all on my shelf. But I also have over 60 SATs to comb through to check the facts. Many of the big companies cover so many standardized tests that they sometimes inaccurately apply concepts from one test to another—i.e. difficult GRE combinations to the simple SAT combination problems and vice versa. Or they have a GRE expert write an SAT book. Or they just do not study the test as closely as they should.)</p></li>
<li><p>They teach these problems as “Counting Problems” without using the terms combination and permutation and without teaching the formulas. (The SAT versions of these questions are much easier to learn to solve without using formulas).</p></li>
<li><p>You are right.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>That’s very interesting! I am always fascinated by the world of test prep (and sometimes appalled). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a question - do you think that test prep companies should fire their book editors and outsource the editing to students? </p>
<p>There are so many egregious errors and inconsistencies in even the biggest test prep companies that make millions each year. Can’t they hire some better editors? Or just save some money and mail a couple of review copies to actual students? </p>
<p>For example, I think it’s hilarious that a 2010 Princeton Review book says that 32/100 = 33%. I caught that within 2 minutes of cracking open the book. </p>
<p>And here’s the 2010 Kaplan PSAT book on double negatives - “just as in math, two negatives added together create a positive.” </p>
<p>If you actually believe what the Kaplan book said, then you have bigger problems than the PSAT. Still, I think that test prep companies should fire their editors and send out a couple of review copies to students. It’s clear that paying the big-shot editors isn’t working. </p>
<p>What do you think, SATwriter?</p>
<p>If I did not do nothing, then did I do something?
- - = +?</p>
<p>^developingheart:</p>
<p>If you “did not do nothing,” then you indeed did something. That’s the rule in English - two negatives (“did not” and “nothing”) combined make a positive.</p>
<p>Please note that the above English rule does not pertain to math. For example:</p>
<p>-1 + -1 ≠ +2</p>
<p>Sorry, i skipped over the addition part.</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if you are right.</p>
<p>Conspiracy? Or maybe that first book is just a bit outdated and in need of revision.</p>
<p>Haha, conspiracy theories in the test prep world?- this is news to me. I’ve never found Barrons to be helpful anyways (their books are notorious for occasionally having off-topic material). But if you want to look for real conspiracy theory don’t look at test prep, look at the makers of the test. College Board, a “non-profit organization”, reaps in millions each year. I won’t deny standardized testing has some benefits in college admissions but it’s also politically influenced. Various sources report*, the writing section was only added after the University of California threatened to drop the test. If CB was truly “non-profit”, why did it bother adding the writing section? $$$$ (among other reasons too I’m sure) I also have personal theories on the other purposes of the SAT but I won’t go there :P</p>
<p>*This is generally what I’ve heard. If you’ve heard different, let me know.</p>
<p>I’ve heard the same reason as to why they added the writing section.</p>
<p>Hey IceQube,</p>
<p>Editing a math book is a difficult thing. I love our editors. But when I wrote a math book, I was kind of stuck. Editors are typically strong in English and they have an aversion to math (I used to be one of those people). And the people who would be good at editing a math book are usually working in a field where the last thing they want to do is edit a 400 page book. So you likely end up with an editor who strictly looks at the text and does not understand the calculations. I asked some math people (who are not editors) to check the calculations, but they just do not have the meticulous nature of a true editor and some errors were probably missed. So we do rely on our students to contact us with errors and we make corrections for the next print run. </p>
<p>It probably seems unprofessional to most of you, but it is the way the publishing business works. It takes years to work the errors out of any book (I just read a John Sanford novel and found two. How does that happen in a novel?), and that’s why there are “2nd editions” and “3rd editions” of text books. They may add some material to make it look like it’s new and different, but they are really just correcting the errors. I’m not defending the practice, just explaining how it is.</p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, I sent my math book to 10 students on CC for editing and feedback. Only 2 responded, one of whom was a dad, and neither helped me correct errors.</p>
<p>^She is completely correct. It is tedious and hard to find and fix all the errors in a typical math book. It isn’t unusual to have at least one error that is egregious and embarrassing, such as the 32/100 from above. Barron’s is no stranger to mistakes. In that list of topics that are supposedly not on the SAT, they mention exponential functions and geometrical transformations, both of which are on the SAT.</p>
<p>lol… I thought there was a conspricy theory on BARRON 2400…
I was about to faint just cuz I wasted 15 dollars on it FROM BORDERS WHERE I CAN’T RETURN IT <em>EVER</em>.
But I’m glad now.</p>
<p>As the author of the math section of the Barron’s SAT book, I would like to clear up a misconception that at least one person out there seems to believe.</p>
<p>First, a comment: when you take the SAT you may use anything that you know. For example, there are a few questions that could be answered using the Law of Sines or the quadratic formula or nPr, the formula for a permutation. But there has NEVER been a question on any SAT that requires you to know any of those things.</p>
<p>In particular, you do NOT need to know the formulas for permutations or combinations to answer any question on the SAT. The very few questions (usually not more than one per test) that could be answered using the formula for nPr can more easily be handled just using the Counting Principle, which, of course, is fully explained and illustrated in the Barron’s book. Note that in the College Board’s “Official SAT Study Guide” on pages 240-241, they do not give any formulas for permutations or combinations.</p>
<p>Finally, is it even possible for you to imagine the following scenario?</p>
<p>A student used the Barron’s SAT book to prepare for the SAT. She took the test, but was upset because there was one question involving permutations that she didn’t know how to answer. She decided to retake the SAT, but first she said to herself, “I don’t want this to happen again. I better learn how to solve permutation problems. How can I do that? I know. Barron’s has another book, SAT 2400, and permutations are probably covered in there. Let me go out and buy that book”…and so she does. </p>
<p>And there you have it—Barron’s tricked another student into buying two books. What a clever conspiracy!</p>
<p>I sort of laughed… :/</p>
