<p>seriously everyone the SAT isn't that long. I mean sure its long but not thaat long. Honestly a senior in high school should be able to do it. I understand it if the student is handicap but really it shouldn't be that tiring. Man in my former school 7th graders had 3 hour exams weekly!</p>
<p>"The average critical reading score fell from 508 to 503, while math dropped from 520 to 518."</p>
<p>... it wasn't a drastic drop. they are talking about it as if the average score dropped 50 points. </p>
<p>maybe our class isn't as smart?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am such a supporter of splitting the SAT1 into 3 smaller exams, and having these exams at 10/12AM rather than 8. I would bet money that scores would dramatically improve if this were to be in effect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What would anyone gain if the average went up? Someone might feel better about him-/herself, but his/her percentile would in theory be the same, so the change wouldn't really make a difference. Colleges would just adjust their notion of a good score.</p>
<p>Still, feeling better has its own benefits as well. The psychology of the SAT does affect kids tremendously, and this exam's power over kids needs to be lessened. The psychological benefits of seeing a 600 as opposed to a 500 can destress more kids (in the first years at least), and can lead to less kids driving themselves ove rthe edge for 3 ridiculous letters in the alphabet.</p>
<p>Hmm, I doubt the top schools will somehow go easier on us because of this.</p>
<p>I think Fatigue has to do with part of the lowering of scores, maybe not a large part but some. It's hard to do anything for almost 4 hours straight, let alone reading passages, solving math problems, or writing essays.</p>
<p>we all know its because of the fatigue</p>
<p>How long was the old SAT? Wasn't it 3 and a half hours, or was it just 3? </p>
<p>Anyway, I think this is due in large part to the fact that there are three sections, each section has fewer problems. Every problem wrong has a greater effect on the final scaled score. The curve has not been too friendly of late.</p>
<p>This is no big deal. They're reporting it as if "Oh no! There's something horribly wrong with the SAT!" or "Oh no! America's students are getting dumber!" When actually, this is the way it's supposed to be. When the average scores drift away from 500, they redo the curves to make 500 as the target average again, don't they? So what's the big deal?</p>
<p>An intresting twist- I understand the cost of the new SAT went up 40 % this past year. I feel that it is discouraging many college applicants from taking the sat the 2nd or third time to improve test scores. Thus the more fortunate ones (middle class and above) enhance there chances at the select schools.</p>
<p>The change works out to getting, one average, half a verbal question wrong and one-fifth a mathl question. Not a very big difference.</p>
<p>Anyone who says the test isn't too long... should try taking it. The way it's divided into ten sections makes it much more tiring than say 4 or 5 sections. I took it once- it was tiring, no questions. </p>
<p>Also, the material on the test changed, that can easily explain any difference in scores.</p>
<p>I took it. It was not bad. The ACT is just as long. The only difference is that it tests basic knowledge. The SAT tests basic thinking and basic knowledge.</p>
<p>Did pretty good on it too.</p>
<p>
Anyone who says the test isn't too long... should try taking it. The way it's divided into ten sections makes it much more tiring than say 4 or 5 sections. I took it once- it was tiring, no questions.</p>
<p>Also, the material on the test changed, that can easily explain any difference in scores.
</p>
<p>That really depends. The way it's divided up into ten sections instead of seven (with the writing section not actually counting as a section, I believe) is pretty brutal, I guess, but in practice, having the short, quick sections to close out was relieving for me. </p>
<p>The ACT's another story. Four sections, all long. I was limping to the end, knowing that each new section was going to take the concentrated effort of the better part of an hour. </p>
<p>And yes, the ACT is not that much shorter.</p>
<p>But I think you're right in that the drastic material change also affects the scores this year.</p>
<p>not funny not funny grrrr</p>
<p>The test has definately become harder, mainly because of the time.</p>
<p>I don’t want to hear all this “the test is harder” crap. The old test wasn’t exactly a piece of cake…</p>
<p>Why are we so worried about 5 points? They are just making a big deal out of this because the SAT it new. Besides people on CC are not effected be this one bit.</p>
<p>u think college board will make the october test easier (easier+better curve) with the news of the decrease in score in order to increase the average score?</p>
<p>
Anyone who says the test isn't too long... should try taking it. The way it's divided into ten sections makes it much more tiring than say 4 or 5 sections. I took it once- it was tiring, no questions.</p>
<p>Also, the material on the test changed, that can easily explain any difference in scores.
I did. actually I took both the old one and the new one. I can honestly say I like the new one more because it got rid on the analogies. Yes by the time its over you feel pretty tired but while doing the exam you should be able to focus and concentrate.</p>
<p>...Does this mean higher scores are worth more now?</p>
<p>(party!!!)</p>