<p>Well, is the alternative any better? What if fewer books were available? What if the total of decent books for the SAT turned into the ACT (abysmal) landscape where there are almost none? </p>
<p>Fwiw, obtaining used SAT material has never been a question of income, but one of legality and integrity. Almost anyone can find the released tests when armed with dedication and persistence. The real question remains why TCB prefers to force the test takers to pursue questionable sources and, by doing this, help the pirates and thieves. </p>
<p>Thankfully, I’m through this era in my kids lives. Our newspaper had “sample” questions from the new SAT. My immediate reaction was that while “real world” math problems are a nice goal, the wording of the questions was really confusing–I had a hard time figuring out what was actually being asked for. And I know math. I shuddered and just hoped that the newspaper wording wasn’t right. I hate to think of a test where you spend more time trying to decipher the question rather than answering it.
It reminded me of the ambiguity of the word problems my D had in 4th grade. She always seemed to have the wrong answer according to the book .When she explained how she read the question (very literally–good lawyer mind) and got her answer, you HAD to agree that she had done the problem correctly.</p>
<p>Actually I don’t see any difference between testing obscure tertiary meanings of common words and testing well-defined single meanings of “obscure” words that are actually not so obscure. How is this more straightforward?</p>
<p>If that directed at me, please note I never wrote it WAS more straightforward. I mentioned that ETS could make the test HARDER if they wanted without having to rely on those obscure words. For the record, I have often shared that I did NOT consider those obscure words really relevant to obtain a great score. I have always maintained that the occasional unknown word could be bypassed through a correct approach to the test. In so many words, if one knows all the words, that is great. Not knowing a few silly words might not impact the result a whole lot, as not every hard word is used in the answer. This relates to our past discussions about slaving over vocabulary and its direct benefits for the SAT. </p>
<p>We will see how the real test eliminates the obscure words in the future! Until then, there is little to debate over. I do not think that vocabulary will be more (or less) of a factor as I do not think that the REAL difficulty of the test is one related to the mastery of the Webster’s but one of concentration and reading ability. </p>
<p>That would not be unique to TCB. Instructors in many high schools and colleges apparently treat old exams for their classes as top secrets*, even though such a policy has obvious disadvantages, presumably because they do not want to have to make new exam questions. Then there was the radiology board exam scandal a few years ago.</p>
<p>UCB, fwiw, I am referring to the tests that TCB releases as part of the QAS program. Years ago, anyone could purchase them for four bucks. I shared how to do it until TCB closed the office. I was not talking about the organized criminals who steal tests in Asia or arrange to reconstruct them. The QAS tests are no longer secret but their availability could be enhanced substantially like it is done for the PSAT. </p>
<p>" If students prefer to take one test, why would it be assumed that they prefer the ACT over the SAT?
In my daughters high schools, the test that they prepared for was the SAT."</p>
<p>Emeraldkity, if you live in a state in which the ACT is required anyway as part of high school, it’s kind of obvious that you’d “prefer” being done with your testing (two birds with one stone) versus going and seeking out another test. </p>
<p>I think the new allocated time for the essay is good. However, I think the essay should be in a different test day. 230 minute test plus the break time is too long for the take takers. Many would not have enough energy and concentration to complete the essay. And since the essay is optional, it will be odd to see many takers leave the testing room and only a few stay for the essay.</p>
<p>They should also offer the essay alongside the SAT2 tests being given on those same days, so that kids who have already taken the SAT could just sit for the essay. No extra work for college board since they could use the same topic in both testing rooms.</p>
<p>I find the newspaper commentary about “obscure” SAT words annoying, to be honest. Personally, I would be really happy to interact with people who know the actual meanings of “fortuitous” and “fulsome.” Then there’s always the story of the person who commended Adlai Stevenson on his speech, saying that it was really “superfluous;” and when Stevenson said that he had been planning to have it published posthumously, replied, “The sooner the better.” </p>
<p>If someone is looking for “obscure,” he/she should try Free Rice–and perhaps do a little good in the process.</p>
<p>Once, about 18 months ago, I was with a group of people where I could really let my hair down, and use the word “vitiate” when I meant “vitiate”–and not have anyone think it was snobbish or obscure. Good times! :)</p>
<p>^ You must enjoy the new vocabulary app on your iPhone! </p>
<p>There is indeed a beauty is words that are obscure to … the chosen audience of the SAT. Words that challenge the typical teenager might become clear and attractive to the same person later in life. </p>
<p>I assume that the SAT writers have decided that there is little merit to utilize a sentence such as:
“The impact of the film was vitiated by poor acting” when they could rely on “The impact of the film was spoiled by poor acting” or use any of blemish, darken, spoil, stain, taint to replace vitiate. </p>
<p>This said if they wanted to could also throw a small curveball by using slightly more oblique meanings: </p>
<p>“The impact of the film was touched by poor acting”
“The impact of the film was tarnished by poor acting”</p>
<p>I think a good number of students would miss the meaning of “touched” here. And, even if the meaning of vitiate is mostly iirelevant to actually solving the question or finds its context. Take a look at</p>
<p>“The impact of the film was XXX by poor acting”</p>
<p>XXX HAS to be a negative word since it is defined by “poor acting”</p>
<p>In the end, the ETS writers might decide to forego the simplest of meanings and pick the ones that are still challenging but sound less stilted to your average HS students, or even the most advanced ones. </p>
<p>A very meretricious post, xiggi! [kidding! obviously!]</p>
<p>I agree that there is a difference between reaching for an unusual word (your film example) and having it be the spot-on choice in a particular context. As Mark Twain remarked, it’s the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.</p>
</p>