<p>I dont think they should give us 25 mins per section. I think they should just give us the exam and give us 3 and a half hours to complete it. No break, no nothing. You can do whatever you want in the exam: drink, eat a snack etc. It should be that way.</p>
<p>Rofl…do anything during the exam eh?</p>
<p>Access a computer and use the Internet, call friends, professors, etc. Talk amongst yourselves. </p>
<p>It would be fun though haha.</p>
<p>You know what I meant. lol</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>We did this for the NACLO and I really liked it.</p>
<p>So, what do you guys think? SHALL WE STORM THE WINTER PALACE???!?!?!?</p>
<p>I would also like it if you can leave as soon as you’re done. Like IB exams. It would be a lot more chill that way</p>
<p>yes yes. Brilliant, Secret Asian Man. Anyone else want to comment???</p>
<p>This is a great idea. In fact, we can even have more than 3 sections. We can increase it to 5 sections and test things such as Science.</p>
<p>Wow I can’t believe nobody ever thought of an alternative of this current format of the SAT.</p>
<p>But seriously, this idea sucks.</p>
<p>Lol. Thanks for the comment Dabigdawg72. Make sure you die before you turn 70. .</p>
<p>No seriously, dont die. I was kidding… But care to elaborate on why this idea would ‘suck’?</p>
<p>This idea would deviate away from the purpose of the SAT, which is to test certain problems under a certain time table. Thus, if the time was condensed it would change everything. When equating is performed it is meant to evaluate how test takers respond under certain time constraints. Moreover, these time constraints help “standardize” each and every test.</p>
<p>If all the problems were to be given under one time constraint you would see a system similar to the ACT. In the ACT it doesn’t matter if you know the problem, it matters how quickly you can do a problem. To that extent, the SAT gives you more time and rewards intelligent knowledge of a question rather than pacing yourself.</p>
<p>You’re assuming ETS would give you the same amount of time in one single section. That is unlikely. This would inflate scores and make it difficult for the mean score to stay at 500. This means they would have to make harder problems. Before you know it you won’t have a test that resembles the SAT.</p>
<p>For those who took both the SAT and the ACT, what test do you feel more pressed for time?</p>
<p>The reason people miss questions on the SAT is because they don’t know how to do the problems. If we were to impose your “solution” we would be penalizing knowledge and rewarding those who take Kaplan and the Princeton Review.</p>
<p>That is why this idea sucks and will never happen.</p>
<p>thats just it… on untimed SAT practice tests, I get 720-750 on CR. On timed practice tests, I get 650-700… On the actual SAT I got 570. I know 95% of the answers, I just hate time constraints.</p>
<p>You are proposing a solution in which most people will get better scores.</p>
<p>That is the problem. </p>
<p>Not everybody can get better scores or the mean would increase over 500. That means ETS would have to take away more time or they would have to increase the difficulty of the questions.</p>
<p>The reason you got a low score was because you didn’t know the answers, not that you were pressed for time, although extra time would have helped. But 20 more minutes wouldn’t have magically caused you to remember the definition of Platitudinous.</p>
<p>Anybody could get a 700 on CR with unlimited time.</p>
<p>Practice for the SAT under only time constraints if you want a realistic score or take the ACT.</p>
<p>True… and I only hate time-constraints because of the time it takes to bubble answers hahaahha believe it or not. It takes me 8 seconds(timed it) to bubble as opposed to the 1 second it takes to circle in the book.</p>
<p>I think the main problem with the proposed system is that it would render the scores for individual sections meaningless. For instance, if some one was great at math, he could rush through all the math questions and then be left with a ton of extra time for CR. He would then score better in CR, not because he was actually good at reading, but because he was good at math. The results would thus show a level of aptitude at reading that didn’t actually exist.</p>
<p>^That’s the first thing I thought of the second I “post quick reply” my first post! Well done, 112358. lol</p>
<p>IMO, certain time restrictions for certain sections. There’s no reason why someone shouldn’t have an advantage if they are smarter at say math or reading to leave more time for the other not-so-well sections.</p>
<p>^Possibly…You see, we’re all going to make good points and yet someone is just going to come out of the blue and tell us why our ideas are not so good after all.</p>
<p>
That’s a bit far-fetched.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I propose a system where everybody who is a member of CC can get better scores. Then everybody who is not a member of CC finds it harder to get better scores so as to maintain the mean of 500.</p>
<p>Problem solved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Time is not the issue for everybody.</p>