<p>To quitejaded: Also realize that simply depending on what you read in context can restrict a certain word to a common phrase or description. Like I mentioned earlier, relying on your vague, in-context, understanding of a word isn't as exciting as actually knowing what the word means. Reading can perhaps tell you that "abominable" is a negative word and can be used to describe a person or a thing; and that "potent" is a more positive word that can be used to describe a drug; and that "impotent" is a negative word that can be used in describing a person or a thing. But if you take the time to actually look up a word and understand its precise meaning, you can use it in more creative ways and better understand what you read, when you encounter it used in a untraditional way (rather than just storing it away as another way to use said word). Looking up "abominable" yields "causing moral revulsion." Perhaps using it to describe a piece of clothing doesn't make as much sense anymore. Looking up "potent" yields "having great power, influence, or effect." I've always known the word, but in a very limited sense. If I encountered it while reading, say, "thrones were potent symbols of authority," I would just replace "potent" with "good" in my head. But knowing the actual meaning, I can more clearly understand the sentence, in that thrones are effective means of symbolizing power. (Note: I mostly pulled these examples from the American Heritage Dictionary.)</p>
<p>Anyway, perhaps I didn't choose the best examples (OK, I didn't choose the best examples :)), but my point is that simply relying on what other people who actually understand a certain word write is only marginally useful if you want to effectively use a word in writing or speech, or to understand fully what you read.</p>
<p>For me, learning vocabulary was a lot easier than I thought it would be, in that I could more completely understand words I thought I once knew, and in that I could connect new words I've either never seen or never understood to other words I know or to root words (be careful with roots words though as the SAT can trip you up by using words that seem to have a certain root, but don't). As for the actual rote, boring, memorization, I was able to memorize about 75 words a day, for the 8 days leading up to the SAT. It took about 25 minutes each day to really get each word in my head. It was both enjoyable, and, I believe, had a point. Like I mentioned earlier, it needs to be reinforced with reading, but if you already read, and have a decent subconscious vocabulary, studying vocab can prove both enjoyable and effective.</p>
<p>Caveat emptor While I personally believe that my method is reasonable for enhancing your reading and writing, it is probably excessive when it comes to the SAT. Usually a vague understanding of whether a word is "positive or negative," what part of speech it is, and its context in a sentence is all you need for the sentence completions. The SAT is a reasoning test, it isn't meant to test how large your vocabulary is, although an encyclopedic lexicon can be helpful :)</p>
<p>George: Concerning which dictionary program I use, I either use the dictionary program that came with my computer (I have a Mac with OS X Tiger; if you don't, then you don't have it) or the official dictionary program that came on the CD that came with my dictionary (American Heritage College Dictionary). I prefer the built-in dictionary as it's easier to read the definition(s), but the official app has audio pronunciations of the words, which is useful. If you don't have access to either of these, then check out bartleby.com, as it has a lot of really good reference books online.</p>