<p>with the debate of the SAT's fairness, the SAT being unfair is undeniably true. However, I see an additional problem some debates don't bring up is how long the SAT is.</p>
<p>My problem is the length of that thing. It is 10 sections, too many questions. Since there are a multitude of questions, the more questions there are, the more likely i will get at least one more wrong. Moreover, there are the short period of times per section and is more than 3 hour test (nearly 4 hour test).</p>
<p>So I was wondering if anyone felt the same? Will reducing the number of sections/removing help (instead of 10, say 6)?</p>
<p>u may skip this if u wish
====possible solutions====
feel free to suggest</p>
<p>to fix this problem:
1) I think that the sections shouldn't be timed and you are allowed to go anywhere on the test; the overall time limit is still there. This is so because this is part of test taking strategies.
2) reduce number of sections
3) remove answer penalty (people argue this does not affect scoring)
4) others</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The SAT is shorter than what it used to be. The old SAT had more Verbal and Math questions, not just overall, but per section too. And the curve for the old SAT was much nicer than the SAT curves today. I know because my school library has the Official SAT study guide for the Old SAT, which has 10 released exams starting from the mid 1990s. </p></li>
<li><p>A study by two people from Case Western University (<a href=“http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/frey.pdf[/url]”>http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/frey.pdf</a>) found a high correlation between the SAT and general mental ability. Obviously, the timing and number of questions on the test aren’t random. </p></li>
<li><p>I don’t see the “multitude” of questions as being adverse. The questions aren’t so difficult that answering more questions means you are almost certain to get some of them wrong. </p></li>
<li><p>There are significant flaws to your claim about “test taking strategies.” All tests are not the same. AP tests differ from regular school tests and the SAT, the ACT differs from the SAT, and your high school’s math teachers tests may even differ from every other teachers’ tests in the school…</p></li>
</ol>
<p>…Which leads to my main point: How can you criticize the way the SAT is administered and structured simply because it is different from the way you may normally take tests in high school? In any case, the number of high scorers to me doesn’t reveal any flaws in the SAT and a need to change it. </p>
<p>And no. The scoring penalty should not be removed because it DOES significantly affect scoring. Each question is in reality worth 1.25 points. Getting 3 questions wrong is the difference of 10-40 points depending on the curve. On the AP exam, for example, the scoring penalty is not necessary because the AP scores are given depending on the composite score and what range the composite score falls in. The ranges are pretty significant, especially for some exams where they are huge. While the scoring penalty on the AP exams did affect some students in the past and cost them a 4 or 5, I would say the vast majority of AP test takers are really unaffected by the scoring penalty.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t change a thing, as I (and most likely anyone else reading this thread) have no clue where to start. The ETS employs a large number of psychometricians and statisticians to product reliable and valid tests. If the SAT didn’t measure anything meaningful, then why would the overwhelming majority of universities accept/require SAT scores?</p>