<p>Found these links on Amazon for the New SAT Official Study Guides. The first one is with the DVD. Both of them have 650 pages and are slated for release on 30th June 2015. I am hoping that there will be at least six full length practice tests. </p>
<p>Official</a> Study Guide for the New SAT with DVD
Official</a> Study Guide for the New SAT</p>
<p>I guess I know what I will be doing this summer. Looks like book-revision time for me and all the other sat-book-authors here at CC! And @SATQuantum – tune up that graphics tablet. Work to be done.</p>
<p>Keep up with the good work! Good books that are relevant for the SAT are still rare. </p>
<p>There’s already one out if you want to prep earlier. it’s on amazon, just search ‘new sat’</p>
<p>The IvyGlobal one looks like bunk. Two practice tests, which are surely speculative as the precise format is yet to be revealed, and lots of fluff (word roots? oof. “Essential 200 words”? double oof).</p>
<p>The prospect likes it <a href=“http://www.theprospect.net/giveaway-win-an-sat-prep-book-designed-for-the-new-2016-sat-34804”>http://www.theprospect.net/giveaway-win-an-sat-prep-book-designed-for-the-new-2016-sat-34804</a></p>
<p>And they didn’t just read a blurb on amazon. </p>
<p>Well I haven’t seen anything on The Prospect that leads me to believe they have any special insighrts into the SAT</p>
<p>It would be quite presumptuous at this stage for anyone to claim that they have an exclusive insight in to the new SAT. Collegeboard has only released the following document that has the new SAT test specifications: <a href=“https://www.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/test_specifications_for_the_redesigned_sat_na3.pdf”>https://www.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/test_specifications_for_the_redesigned_sat_na3.pdf</a> </p>
<p>This is really all we have to go by. I have looked at all of the 26 math questions that Collegeboard has disclosed in this document. My guess is that a lot of the algebra content will be similar to the older SAT and there will be question types that will be very similar to the ones on the old SAT. In addition, I think the harder math questions, for example the ones involving polynomials may resemble the content that is on SAT Math Level 1 and even from Level 2. In addition, the College Algebra content in CLEP might also be similar to the new SAT. In any case, ETS has a very specific style that I notice in all of these exams, and they are likely to follow that in the new SAT as well. </p>
<p>We just have to wait for the new official guides to really see what the breadth of content will be. But there will always be authors who want to be the first in the market to gain the first mover advantage. Only time will tell how relevant their predictions are. </p>
<p>That Prospect giveaway is probably paid or partnered content. I’m quite sure there will be nothing “AMAZING” about the book.</p>
<p>@marvin100 It is so hard these days to distinguish between genuine review and someone pushing a product. This particular review by Prospect looks like a promotion because there is nothing in that article that goes in depth into what this book is about. I guess we will have to deal with authors claiming to be the first when the New SAT is rolled out. </p>
<p>@SATQuantum @marvin100 Okay you two are clearly working together on this. This is the second time you two have tag teamed to say this book can’t be any good. Even I think it’s too early to say if it’s good or not because I’ve hardly cracked my copy. You guys definitely work for CB or some other company.</p>
<p>I’d like to hear from someone else, NOT you two. </p>
<p>how in the world can a company already have a practice book out for the new exam when college board hasn’t released one single question for the new test? I totally agree with marvin100 and SATquntum (who, by the way, is a tutor and works for himself- he has no dog in this fight.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d like to hear from someone else, NOT you two.<<<</p>
<p>Are you ready? I do not work for The College Board. </p>
<p>It is indeed too early to say this book is not good. Or excellent for that matter. Why? Because there is NOTHING to judge it by! Those authors rely on a crystal ball and the idlest of speculation. Should they, and their hired supporters, be taken seriously? Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the SAT knows that answer. </p>
<p>By challenging respected posters such as Marv and SQ, I am afraid your objectivity on this issue is suspect. </p>
<p>HTH </p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>By the way, Lisa, what are the odds that you are listed on the credits of this book? </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ivyglobal.com/downloads/greenbook_sample.pdf”>http://www.ivyglobal.com/downloads/greenbook_sample.pdf</a></p>
<p>Seriously! </p>
<p>@LisaCF - I don’t know SATQuantum and have no ulterior motive, but I’ll bow out and let others discuss. I certainly don’t want to “poison the well.”</p>
<p>I also don’t work for the College Board.</p>
<p>I do work in the prep industry, but I don’t make or sell books and have no dog in that fight.</p>
<p>Best of luck to everyone.</p>
<p>And thanks, @xiggi.</p>
<p>On Edit: @xiggi blows it up. Ouch, that must smart, Ms. Faieta.</p>
<p>@xiggi
The only positive thing I’ve said about this book is that it is huge. </p>
<p>I asked for comments from the unbiased. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask. The two posters I called out are biased. While I myself am biased, again, I did not post anything positive about the book besides a comment on it’s size. </p>
<p>Also, if I wanted to hide my identity, I’d have come up with a sneakier name. Knowing full well how these online things can escalate, I’ll have to ask you to kindly look no further into my personal details. Had you asked me directly, I’d have answered honestly.</p>
<p>^I apologize in advance for being rude, but bashing two well respected contributors to this forum to try to hawk your own book is really pathetic. You may claim that you were not hawking, but your comments about @marvin100 and @SATQuantum clearly portray your agenda. </p>
<p>Read their previous posts. See if there’s a history of bias. You’ll find the answer is no. I think they’re owed an apology.</p>
<p>Also, in the future it would be helpful to acknowledge your connection to your employer when discussing its products so readers have a better understanding of your perspective.</p>
<p>One last thing. Unless @LisaCF can redeem herself, I’d suggest that people who respect @marvin100 and @SATQuantum stay away from her company’s materials - even when they’re not released too early to possibly be helpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@LisaCF - just curious, is The Prospect paid by or a partner of your company?</p>
<p>Thank you, @CHD2013. I appreciate your defense of my track record. I’m definitely <em>not</em> biased against any prep book makers and am very happy when new, useful prep materials become available.</p>
<p>I’m <em>not</em> a fan of astroturfing, though, and definitely don’t appreciate marketing shills coming onto this forum to hawk their wares without revealing their clear, unequivocal conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>Shady work, IvyGlobal, @LisaCF. Shady indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My daughter’s class will be the first to take the new version of the SAT. She has dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia so it’s important that any test prep books I get have an accurate preview of the test. It would never have occurred to me to check publishing dates to see if the test prep manual predated the actual test release. How can a company possibly claim they can prep kids for a test they haven’t seen?</p>