<p>The curve seems to be much lower than other SAT II curves. For example, I scored a 780 on math II, which was only 82nd percentile. I scored a 780 for lit (surprisingly), and it was 98th percentile. The average for literature is also much lower than the other subject tests-this year it was the 500s. To me, it also seems to be one of the hardest subject tests. Suggestions as to why lit has such a tough curve?</p>
<p>Poetry is hard and the test crams a lot of reading selections into a very tight time frame. Very few high school students are competent interpreters of serious literature, especially on a deadline (but also because of the increasing reliance on Sparknotes & their ilk).</p>
<p>So you’re saying that high school students, on average, are stronger in other subjects than literature? That’s interesting. Shouldn’t all subject tests be curved to the same average though?</p>
<p>Probably because not a lot of people take it, so the ones who do are very prepared</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surprisingly, the lit sat2 is one of the most popular tests (with over 100,000 test takers annually). I believe the exact opposite of your statement is true: since the lit has so many test takers, most are not prepared. </p>
<p>I believe (with no evidence whatsoever) that only 10% of lit test takers are strong english students. However, the vast majority of the lit test takers are weak high school students who need another sat2 for applications. For example, if a student only took all “regular” classes in high school, they are more likely to take the lit test than any other as this test requires the least classroom instruction.</p>
<p>public high school students, in particular, don’t read a lot of poetry and often struggle to understand what little they do read. might be one reason for the lower curve.</p>
<p>@jkeil91 , Citing that a lot students do poorly would not be evidence for a harsh curve lol. </p>
<p>I can also testify to the fact that people take it because it requires little to no classroom instruction. When I was picking my subjects, the only ones I was solid on were Math II and Physics. Since I could do 3 and not have to send one if it sucked, I figured might as well throw another one in there. I decided on Lit since you don’t really need any formal training other than being a good reader. I took it and got a 720. Took it again and got a 590 lololol</p>
<p>@BassGuitar LOL wow, yea same story here. I took my SAT 2 lit right before my SATs after junior year and got a 690.</p>
<p>I retook it this October with 1-2 months of studying, and got a 640. Screw poetry :)) </p>
<p>It is likely because it is the second most popular test and many people take it as an “add-on” that doesn’t require a whole lot of preparation. Indeed, that is what I did. Both times when I took the test, I just barely did some practice problems on the SAT website and read some tips here on College Confidential. The first time I got a 630, the second time a 760. There was barely any difference except perhaps better time management and the difficulty of the passages. Some are easier to understand than others.</p>