<p>It's worse for everybody. The test is now a whopping 3 hours, 45 minutes--it's not even remotely a test of intelligence. Basically, whoever can stay awake long enough to actually complete the test is the winner. Also, more sections means less questions per section. Therefore, while one wrong on math might have cost you 20 points on the old, it might now cost you 30 or 40. </p>
<p>But the worst part is that many of these changes aren't even necessary. Why did they even add a writing section to the SAT? It's the same bloody thing as the SAT II! So the schools that are fussing about writing being an indicator of college success...have THEM add the SAT II Writing to their list of requirements! OK, OK, maybe the analogies and quantitative comparisons were a bit unfair, so eliminate those questions from the SAT, and keep the test to a reasonable 3 hours. There's absolutely no excuse for adding a Writing section. An SAT sans QC's and analogies, and with more short reading passages would have been perfectly reasonable.</p>
<p>to "make the test more similar to the college curriculum". they thinks its outdated and all that crap. but its not fair cause 1600 ppl mite get worse on the new SAT cause of essay. the essay is my only problem now. I hate the new SAT.</p>
<p>The Princeton Review provides a very cynical analysis of the change in their new SAT book. I wonder if the Princeton Review always take that viewpoint.</p>
<p>yeah, the UC's wanted it to change. They threatened collegeboard that they would not accept SAT scores since the ACT was more practical with the essay and all. So, collegeboard, being money hungry, and realising they'd be losing a HUGE client base quickly added the essay so they'd still get their money.</p>
<p>Well, the UC's are stupid then. They could simply demand changes to the current SAT Verbal and Math sections, and require the SAT II Writing instead. There's no excuse for cramming all of them into one.</p>
<p>I guess, then, SAT scores will be more appropriately weighted, as now they are better representatives of which students can step up to the challenge. Don't like it? Don't go to college, then.</p>
<p>"I guess, then, SAT scores will be more appropriately weighted, as now they are better representatives of which students can step up to the challenge."</p>
<p>Colleges themselves can weight the SAT's however they want. For example, the UC's could have required 4 SAT II's (Writing + Math + two others) and instead added the writing score to the SAT. Voil</p>
<p>Don't laugh but here is my real concern about the new Sat I, I don't think I can go that long without eating! No kidding. I don't have any kind of medical condition, I just get hungry and since I'll probably be nervous (understatement of the year) I might want a quick trip to the bathroom too. The college board site says no food or drink. Can I put some juice and snacks in my pockets and eat them during breaks? Are there even breaks? And if there are breaks do you stay in the testing room or go out into the hall or somewhere for them? Thanks, I guess I'm fairly clueless about this.</p>
<p>Well technically you can't bring food and drinks into the center but screw that. Just stuff whatever in ur pockets and go and eat during the breaks in the hall. But anyways, I hate the new sat also. Not only will my recently hard earned 1520 be more or less useless at many universities, I can't sit through 3 hours and 45 minutes of examination. Stupid UC and stupid CB for screwing all us juniors over.</p>
<p>"the new sat is hot hot hot... hotter than a chimpanzee at an OZZIE Zoo. WHoohoo!" sayith the crazy hurricane-bottle (he..he like the ryhme scheme- my poetry kicks bootay!)</p>
<p>Good point. Why not tweak the test a little (-QC and analagoes + algebra 2 + more cr) and just require the SAT II Writing instead of making the SAT an indurance test.</p>