<p>Aren't there also other options that would still keep the exam in one sitting? For example, they could shorten or eliminate the experimental sections in each part -- integrate a few questions into the regular sections. Also, I agree with others here that given the way many schools are using or not using the new writing, they could well put that on the chopping block or make it optional. The old system with the SAT II writing was preferable.</p>
<p>While I can certainly see why some might think that the new SAT is too long, there are also quite a few arguments supporting the current format and length of the exam and opposing this new plan. College Board supposedly studied the effect of lengthening the exam when they first started working on the new SAT and found that fatigue does not really play a factor in performance until testing time extends over 5 hours. And though the length of the test can be daunting at first, students get accustomed to it after taking several practice tests under realistic conditions (as all of my students do). The test is about as short as it can be without sacrificing the test reliability. In other words, if there were only 25 math items instead of 54, for example, the section would not be as thorough and the scores would not be as accurate or precise. There is also the concern of testing experimental questions. With a single test, it is far easier to insert an experimental section that is essential to constructing future tests. I imagine that it would be much more difficult to test experimental items with individual sections given on different days. Giving a long lunch break is really not feasible if one is to insist on having different forms of the test with different section orders -- test-takers would have plenty of time over an hour to discuss the questions on previous sections (which may come up later for some of the other test-takers) and share answers. (The MCAT, which lasts about 7 hours, gives a one-hour lunch break, but the section order is the same for all test-takers.) Finally, were we to go ahead with the new plan, it would take three testings (over at least three months) to take the SAT just once. I doubt many students would want to do that, and it dramatically reduces the opportunities available for re-testing (which really helps some students). (By the way, proposing only one national test date for the SAT is about the worst idea I've heard. It makes sense for the PSAT, since it's normally only used for scholarship purposes, and not for college admission, but it would be grossly unfair and unreasonable to give students only one chance to do well on a test that still carries this much weight. No other important standardized test that affects such a large population that I know of is only offered once per year (except perhaps the entrance exams for admission to high schools).) (And why spread the APs over multiple weekends, when there are more opportunities for a student to be unavailable over a particular weekend? Students are expected to be in school during the week, but they should not be expected to be available every single weekend over the course of one or two months. And imagine the unfairness of one exam being given much earlier than another exam; one student would have an advantage of several additional weeks of preparation time over another.)</p>
<p>The best solution is probably to have first-time test-takers take several mock exams under realistic conditions (a weekend morning, starting at about 8:30 or 9 am) and bring some food and drink on Test Day for the break. Adding two or three slightly longer breaks (about 10 minutes) to the exam may also be a good idea.</p>
<p>It does not have to be in different days. It can be held in two sessions, split by a lunch break. That's what happens when students take two APs or two college finals on the same day, that's what happens at the Baccalaureate exam.</p>
<p>The current breaks are too short for many students, especially female students, trying to use the bathrooms in unfamiliar buildings. And from a nutrition's point of view, 5 hours is too long a time between meals (disastrous for diabetics, too).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems to me that the definition of "one sitting" is the issue here. From what I gather, test takers were made to do the test over a period of 5 hours + including breaks but no lunch. This is far too long for teenagers to go without food. Why should the a portion of the test not be administered AFTER a lunch break? It would resolve the issue of tiredness and hunger on the part of many students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you serious? What kind of person can't last 5 hours without food? That is no excuse...come on. If it is that big of a problem they could just eat a lot of pasta the night before like marathon runners. Diabetics should carry around sugary foods + obviously special arrangements should be made imo. The fact remains that your average teen can go from 8 - 1 without lunch. Hell on a daily basis (school days) I don't even eat breakfast and I maybe eat lunch 60-70 percent of the time. (and I am not the only one..) I know a wrestler who says that he isn't even supposed to eat breakfast or lunch (if that is team policy that is horrible - what is with that??).</p>
<p>Yes, I am serious. There is absolutely no reason for CB to stretch the exam to 5 hours (not counting driving time for some students who have to drive 50 miles or more to a test center). There are better ways to administer the test. I have suggested one: Split it into two sessions, AM and PM on a single day.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"And though the length of the test can be daunting at first, students get accustomed to it after taking several practice tests under realistic conditions (as all of my students do)."
[/quote]
Godot--this is one of the ways the test favors more privileged students.</p>
<p>snowdancer16,</p>
<p>I am not going to pretend that the wealthy and privileged do not have an advantage on the SAT, but I just don't see splitting the test up over several days as a viable solution. Additionally, ANY student, regardless of income, can easily take several practice tests (self-administered, if necessary) before taking the actual test. In fact, that's the least any test-taker should do to prepare for the exam.</p>
<p>If they split it over three days, everybody will just take the ACT. Taking the long SAT1, then all the SATIIs, plus APs, plus all the regular tests at school, more and more students even at our East Coast school switched to the ACT.
I agree with the person who said split it into two sections. There doesn't need to be an hour break, but enough time to go to the bathroom and stretch and eat a sandwich.</p>
<p>Catherine, one should not expect the current aberration regarding the accepatnce of ACT as SAT Subject Tests replacement to continue for long. The pendulum always swing a bit too far. Elite schools did not use to value the ACT, but they erred on valuing it way too much. There is absolutely no basis for considering any of the ACT sections to be comparable to the SAT Subject Tests. </p>
<p>In the end, there is little difference between the ACT and SAT, except for their respective testing integrity. Further, the only chance for the ACT to gain greater acceptance is to continue to mimic the SAT in its changes, The most redeeming value of the ACT today is that it gives applicants a bit of gamemanship. The ACT has failed to develop into a better a test or even equal test to the SAT, and this since its inception.</p>
<p>By the way, I disagree with Godot's conclusions on the possibilities of switching the AP and SAT tests. But, I am used to Godot's positions. :)</p>
<p>splitting it will make the test easier. Part of what makes the SAT hard is that you have to concentrate for 4 hrs at a time. If you cant concentrate for 4 hrs straight, You are gonna be in MAJOR trouble in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you cant concentrate for 4 hrs straight, You are gonna be in MAJOR trouble in college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Are there college classes that last 4 hours? Are there final exams that last more than 3?</p>
<p>in my opininion, the SAT has become more a test of endurance than "aptitude." when i was studying for the SATs, my biggest problem was not becoming exhausted.</p>
<p>btw, if anyone is planning to take the SAT soon, make sure you drink coffe or other caffeine-rich drinks. I drank coffee before I left home and brought some in a thermos for breaks. Neddless to say, i had endurance. although many test prep books tell you not to drink coffee, don't take that advice as fact.</p>
<p>I <em>still</em> don't see what was wrong with using the SAT II Writing test. If colleges need a writing test, let them require it. The SAT should have been left alone.</p>
<p>And Spetsnaz, my kids always ate breakfast before school (at about 6 am!) AND needed a granola bar for energy during 4th bell. Too long to wait for lunch when you're skinny and growing.</p>
<p>My scheduled finals had three hours of time allotted for test-takers. In some of those, I used nearly all the scheduled time, to finish my hand written essays. If you've ever crammed for a paper, you might have found yourself writing 9 pages of research in the 10 hours left before it's due. The SAT is not too long for students who are serious about going to college. It is also a test of academic stamina; sometimes you'll have to continue writing and reading long after fatigue sets in. I had to take a 3 hour final and (because I'm a terrible procrastinator) was forced to complete my self-scheduled 3 hour final just before it. I was typing and writing from 10:00am-4:30pm, with a short break to make and scarf a sandwich in the dining hall. The SAT is not too long; if you can't handle the stress, you will have a breakdown during your college exams.</p>
<p>I note that the admissions ticket for the SAT now states </p>
<p>
[quote]
You may bring snacks. Although food or beverages cannot be opened in the test room, you may stow them under your chair or desk and consume them outside the test room during breaks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would think snacks would be adequate sustenance, without the need for a full lunch break. </p>
<p>What is needed is a break long enough to use the restroom, including dealing with the lines!</p>
<p>Wisteria:</p>
<p>Yes, indeed! S's lunch breaks in high school were 20 minutes long anyway.</p>
<p>Splitting up the SATs into different dates would be a terrible idea. What is needed are longer breaks. I remember bringing a sandwich the second time I took the test but because I could not actually eat it in the classroom I was reluctant to get up and eat it standing up. The test is long. Unfornuately not everyone can get test preparation, and doing self-administered preps is also hard to do. I don't buy into the idea that if you're serious about college you will be able to handle the SAT. Simply add in 10-15 minutes breaks and allow students to eat where they are seated. The idea that students can even cheat if given a longer break is ridiculous. They can easily go to the bathroom and discuss the questions if they wanted to. It doesn't matter what order they're in, so long as you know what questions you're talking about if you already answered them you can go back and change your answer when the proctor is not looking which is basically 95% of the time. For the PSAT, all APs, and SATs, the proctors are sitting in front of the rooms either reading something or wandering off day dreaming. So it doesn't matter at all. If kids want to cheat they will find creative ways to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Godot--this is one of the ways the test favors more privileged students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or not. It favors students who attempt to prepare for the SATs. Even if you are underpriveleged, you can still A) go to a public library, B) ask your guidance counselor or C) Go online</p>
<p>That way, you can get one of those SAT prep books that kids tend to use nowadays.</p>
<p>Personally, I think splitting the test up is worse than stupid. I really don't want to waste 3 days. 3 Hours and 45 Minutes is not really that long, and students better get used to taking long tests if they want to hack it in college anyways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College Board supposedly studied the effect of lengthening the exam when they first started working on the new SAT and found that fatigue does not really play a factor in performance until testing time extends over 5 hours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, that's what they found. The whole thing was an effort to salvage the SAT business of their largest customer and test fees from an entire state. Would their "research" have come up with any other conclusion?</p>
<p>Abstract</p>
<p>This study evaluated whether the addition of a writing
section to the SAT Reasoning Test (referred to as the
SAT® in this study) would impact test-taker performance
because of fatigue caused by increased test length. The
study also investigated test-takers subjective feelings
of fatigue. Ninety-seven test-takers were randomly
assigned to three groups: the first group took a current
SAT with no essay; the second group took a pseudo new
SAT composed of the current SAT plus an essay, with
the essay appearing in the first section of the test; and
the third group also took the pseudo new SAT with an
essay, but with the essay in the last section. Test-taker
performance on the verbal and math sections and the
essay was then evaluated and compared. The results
indicated that while the extended testing time for the
new SAT may cause test-takers to feel fatigued, fatigue
did not affect test-taker performance.</p>