There is only one officially released (#10 on the College Board site, the test administered Oct 2018). There are others available elsewhere on the internet that have been released QAS.
@evergreen5 thanks. If CB is going to continue this trend then it would be great if they released practice tests to reflect that. Using the tests in their blue book now doesn’t give us realistic math sections to practice with. I know kids scoring perfect scores with these “harder” practice tests and then getting two wrong for a 740 on the most recent test. I get that they should be able to score the same on these new math tests but, honestly, the strategy is different for timing if this is the deal now.
Not much material or sample tests that are close to the current math difficulty level. I wonder why College Board don’t make the QAS tests publicly available. Yes they are available thru internet boards - but only the people who are deep into this testing (institutes / private tutors etc) are aware of those resources. College Board should make an effort to have these resources available to everyone OR to no one (if they think that keeping them secret will help making the test more effective).
@RichInPitt this just means their test design failed to stay the same level, and failed to test the higher calibered students. A well designed tests should not rely on “curve” to make justice, instead they should be designed to test true math skill level. They are not in this case.
DS got 2 wrong in the math section and got a 750.
Complaints won’t matter. CB has been intentionally reducing the difficulty of the math section for years. It is done to try to lower score differentials by sex at the higher score levels. If you assume that careless errors are random, then the easier the test form the more impacted the higher ability group will be by the errors. This has the effect of narrowing differentials, as a careless error counts the same as a substantive lack of understanding.
Look closely at the math questions and you will see that some are simply reading comprehension questions. For instance, a question involving a system of equations where an (x,y) is sought. Almost invariably, the question will ask what is the x-solution for a given y value. This is done because the test takers know that coordinates are customarily given as x first and y second. By specifying y, they hope to catch out those who do not read carefully, and will have always seen x first. Note that if a student makes that careless error, one of the multiple choice answers will invariably be the correct solution for the misread question, confirming that the student knows the solution methods (either analytically or through substitution methods), but merely misread it carelessly. You can see this exact “trick” in successive SATs by looking at Question 9, Section 3 in the April 2017 QAS SAT and Question 3, Section 3 in the May 2017 QAS SAT. (A quick search of reddit will turn up links to all the QAS SATs.)
The same motivation was behind the original double weighting of the verbal sections for the PSAT. Because there is greater representation of males at the right tail of the math distribution, equal weighting of the verbal and quantitative sections would have dramatically reduced the number of female NMSF.
In my opinion, the proper strategy for avoiding these sorts of “careless error” traps for the high ability student is to utilize careful reading comprehension strategies in the math section.
That’s the strategy my son used after have gotten 2 wrong in math section on the Dec. 2018 test. He practiced to read each of the question instead of looking at the question and assume.
@homerdog College board is also using the same strategy for the writing section where just one mistake can drop the score by 30 points. For example the December test -1 in writing was -30 points on the verbal score. The reading seems to be a bit more consistent so far or at least I do not think there was a case that -1 was ever -30. Well the only strategy I can think about is to check and double check your work.
Also a student should be super careful on test taking like never misbubble , omit a question etc.
@am9799 yes on the August 2019 math section of the SAT 1 wrong is 770. The math was very easy.
August 2019 math after review of SAS
34 hard, 16 medium, 8 easy
@cyneye How many did you have wrong and what was your scaled score, for math?
Ugh. D1 was scheduled in August but changed her date to drop the essay. Now taking on October. Fingers crossed-- this is frustrating and stressful! I detest the College Board.
@cyneye huh? That doesn’t even make sense! A ton of hard questions and then a hard curve? I’m confused. Maybe they aren’t defining “hard” correctly.
@homerdog I have doubts that those numbers are accurate. From what I’m seeing, the SAS may not have been released yet.
I have not received mine in the mail. I am anxious to see them.
My understanding is that SAS is released online, not in the mail. I think that changed around a year ago.
I also saw my son’s SAS online. For math, 34 hard, 16 medium, and 8 easy. Comparing with past tests, 2019 August SAT Math is very difficult. Therefore, the math curve doesn’ make sense.
Does anyone have SAS info from an earlier SAT that also had a harsh curve?
As others have disclosed my daughter missed 6 math questions and got a 680. Using the tables from her other attempts Oct 2018 and Apr 2019 she would have gotten a 700 and 720, respectively. Beyond that she took the Princeton Review 1400+ class in each of those 4 tests and the 16 other additional practice test she took missing 6 math questions yielded a 730. Put another way in the 22 other real and practice tests her score would have been at least 700 and most often 730 – which is a goal she worked very hard to achieve. I understand there will be some variation in the curve, but 40 to 50 points in the 700 +/- range seems harsh. Is there any precedent for an adjustment being made?
The curve has been harsh for a while, at least a year or more. I assume it’s because there were “too many” high scorers? In any event, I wouldn’t expect to see changes.