"New SAT Won’t Include Obscure Vocabulary Words"
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/ed...-words.html?hp

"... the vocabulary questions ... will no longer include obscure words. Instead, the focus will be on what the College Board calls “high utility” words that appear in many contexts, in many disciplines — often with shifting meanings — and they will be tested in context. For example, a question based on a passage about an artist who “vacated” from a tradition of landscape painting, asks whether it would be better to substitute the word “evacuated,” “departed” or “retired,” or to leave the sentence unchanged".

Wow. Just like in grade school.

Another example of the general lessening of standards and the dumbing down of the American mind.

If the kids can no longer pass the test, change the test.

((I))
What "obscure" words do you think should be kept? Nothing over 3 syllables, please.

vacated, I love working with people from the US. They seem to "take leave" or going on "vacation" not sure what "vacated" means is it some sort of colon cleaning.

Two degrees but still struggle with special words :-)

Hi Ira

Hi Ira - are you sure you don't want this is the Lounge?

Do you have to take the SAT now to travel in Europe?

in the Lounge.

Who gets to decide what "obscure" is? Is the SAT now testing at 8th grade level?

Hmmmm. I guess I thought testing on "obscure" words was a way to see if the student is average or above average in her vocabulary.

"Dumbing down" is right.

I always thought that the obscure words were meant to give an edge to students whose parents could afford to send them to SAT prep classes, not as a measure of actual vocabulary proficiency.

Personally, I don't know very many kids who do well on the vocabulary section. I was an avid reader as a kid and I did rather poorly on the english portion. On the other hand, I aced the writing test which was an optional test given on a different day. Nobody cared about writing back in the day.

My one DD aced every vocabulary test in Honors English in high school without studying. She bombed the English portion of the SATs. I am guessing the SAT's vocab section is obscure words that most kids don't know or have rarely seen. Kudos to the kids who do well on that section.

Poor kiddies won't have a reason to even learn words for a test, theyll be the drone workers of the future. America the uneducated.

As far as I know, they haven't learned them anyway, thus the lousy scores.

The number of universities not requiring the SATs is growing. So they've got to change it up or die.

I personally think that writing and speaking should primarily be about communication. Peppering your speech or writing with obscure words is not, IMO, something to be terribly proud of. If you stand behind what you say, then there is no reason to gussy up the language.

As for ira's "concerns", old people simply don't like change.

<i>I always thought that the obscure words were meant to give an edge to students whose parents could afford to send them to SAT prep classes, not as a measure of actual vocabulary proficiency.</i>

I'm not sure that was the intent, but that has certainly been the result.

<i>Poor kiddies won't have a reason to even learn words for a test, theyll be the drone workers of the future. America the uneducated.</i>

That some folks think memorizing vocabulary words amounts to education is precisely what is wrong with education in the US (and elsewhere).

"Peppering your speech or writing with obscure words is not, IMO, something to be terribly proud of."

I have an aunt who does this. And then another aunt who takes great pleasure in "translating" what she has said into normal words :) It's pretty entertaining for the rest of us.

I'll defend the SAT people, to a point.

The referenced article says they won't know if the new test will be a better predictor of college success than the old test. If it does, then it's a good change.

The other issue that was mentioned was the belief that the change will enable the test to better gauge a student's achievement in high school, instead of allowing students who can afford prep courses to have an edge. If that's true -- and there is an "if" in there -- I endorse the change.

"I always thought that the obscure words were meant to give an edge to students whose parents could afford to send them to SAT prep classes, not as a measure of actual vocabulary proficiency."

This wasn't true in our experiences. You can study for the SAT or ACT by yourself using a number of methods. We bought the workbook but didn't pay for classes in person.

Travelgrommet doesn't know memorisation is an inescapable part of education, why am I not surprised. Get those zip up coveralls ready lol.

Some folks think reading widely, and learning a lot of words in the process, amounts to education.

It's sort of unhelpful that the Times article doesn't give any examples of "obscure" words that used to be on the test, but won't be any longer.

It trumps not reading and havjng vocab similar to my 3 year old niece as a uni candidate.

I just heard on a news show that the SAT is not a predictor of success in college. In fact, the only true predictor seems to be the high school GPA. Many experts who have researched this say the SAT is not really necessary anymore and should be scraped altogether.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...near-equations

Funny take on this from the New Yorker:
Directions: Match the italicized slanty word or phrase with its meaning.

1.Mike, like, likes Emily, but not like that. The best meaning of “like” is:

(a) you know
(b) um
(c) similar to
(d) derives pleasure from
(e) lolz
2. Mrs. Fisher explained that the Latin weird expression carpe diem means “seize the day.” “Seize the day” means:

(a) F.T.W.
(b) it is what it is
(c) twerking
(d) YOLO
3.John threw a party when his parents went away, and it was a catastrophe. “Catastrophe” means:
(a) epic fail
(b) #latergram
(c) T.T.Y.L.
(d) sup
4.Kelsey was having an identity crisis issue ish. “Identity” means:

(a) Self-conception based on social, political, religious, physical, and other distinctive personal characteristics
(b) Twitter handle
(c) Tumblr account
(d) personal brand
5. Doug’s grandpa is a big Internet troll. “Troll” means:

(a)a magical dwarf who lives in nature
(b) a provocateur person who goes online and writes offensive things just to rile people up
(c) a kind of doll that I played with in kindergarten
(d) Donald Trump
Select Pick the word or phrase that DOESN’T fit.

6.____ always using Snapchat.

(a) Your
(b) You’re
(c) Ur
d) Yore
7. The 2004 movie “Mean Girls” is ____.

(a) classic
(b) old-school
(c) a satire of high-school behavior adapted from a best-selling work of nonfiction, written by Tina Fey and starring Lindsay Lohan
(d) old
8.Dave knew he’d be there, so he told his teacher, “See ya then, ____.”

(a) bro
(b) brah
(c) Mr. Edwards
(d) dude
9. When he got to college, Jason discovered that his research skills were severely deficient very bad. “Research” means:

(a) Google stuff
(b) Wikipedia stuff
(c) search for information, both online and at the library
(d) Facebook-stalk
10. The rafting trip was really ____.

(a)cool
(b) kewl
(c) exhilarating
(d) awesome
Essay: Please compose write an essay of at least four tweets in length about a subject topic thing of your choosing. Don’t forget to use punctuation and stuff.


Photograph by Thomas Barwick.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ocial_facebook

Shock and ah.

I guess this brands me as old but I thoroughly agree with Ira. Maybe I have a slanted view but the fact that I always did extremely well on the vocab section offset my lower math scores. Back when I went to school one didn't "study" for the SAT, one just "took" it. I'm also sure my math weakness had something to do with the attitude back then about girls not being able to understand math.

I was astounded to read that one of our major state universities is offering architecture classes in Spanish because the students couldn't understand them in English.

That's funny, chummy!

Sorry - I took the SATs back in the last ice age and the vocabulary test was NOT difficult. Granted I was a voracious reader and was a good test taker - some people just don't do well on tests. But we didn't have any such thing as SAT prep courses. You just walked in and took the tests - with whatever was in your brain from being in school all those years.

For an interesting view of your vocabulary go to freerice.com. Not only a chance to test yourself, but you are also contributing to a solution to world hunger. I've gotten to level 53 - but during a really boring conference call.

Encourage everyone to try it.

And yes, the SAT should have some words most students won't know - otherwise it's not a test of comparative knowledge.

<i>Travelgrommet doesn't know memorisation is an inescapable part of education, why am I not surprised.</i>

It shouldn't come as a surprise. I've long dismissed the importance of memorization in education and prefer an emphasis on analytical skills, problem solving, and math (not arithmetic) skills. Memorization is not thinking.

Mnemosyne is the mother of the Muses.

Pretty soon "obscure" will be an obscure word. I got an 800 on the English SAT and am still proud of it to this day...and use a lot of the skills it took to get that score in my everyday life.

Vincenzo makes good point. If the purpose of the SAT is to predict success on a college level, then any question, or change to questions, that can be found to correlate (is that too obscure?) with college success is a valid one. If knowledge of obscure words do not serve the purpose of the test, then they should be thrown out and words that do so should be substituted and evaluated for their predictability of college success. Unless of course, the purpose of the test is to inflate the egos of those who do well.

>"For example, a question based on a passage about an artist who “vacated” from a tradition of landscape painting, asks whether it would be better to substitute the word “evacuated,” “departed” or “retired,” or to leave the sentence unchanged".<<

Entirely sensible question - since in that context "vacated" is - to me - entirely meaningless. Thinking about the appropriateness of a word to a specific meaning in context is exactly what school examinations should be encouraging, at different levels appropriate to the expected level of the pupil's development. Just testing for some "absolute" meaning is distinctly Gradgrind-ish and limiting.

I wouldn't call this an "aptitude" test, though, since however you design a vocabulary test, it's testing prior knowledge.

In a strict sense, you're right about "aptitude." But the test is supposed to determine not just what knowledge you've acquired or possess innately, but also whether you'll succeed at a future endeavor.

Perhaps the test will include a whole bunch of opportunities to use nouns as verbs so we can "dialogue" together.

"I've gotten to level 53 - but during a really boring conference call."

And they actually pay you a salary to do this stuff?

Ira, your "answer" of "Wow. Just like in grade school." speaks volumes about your own understanding of the test. Back to that slide rule, Mr. Engineer.

"This wasn't true in our experiences. You can study for the SAT or ACT by yourself using a number of methods. We bought the workbook but didn't pay for classes in person."

Fair point. However, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the test is supposed to be designed to measure one's educational accomplishments and preparation for college, yet there is an entire industry built around studying FOR this test? If it truly is a measure of where a student is educationally, then shouldn't students go in cold?

IMHO yes, student should go in cold.

BUT, a lot of kids don;t work to their potential in lower grades and the purpose of the classes is two fold:

Teach kids how to take the test (some are intimidated and some terrified and this can significantly lower the score so it doesn't reflect what they actually know)

It provides kids with some perspective on what they should know (which may be a whole lot different from what some schools are teaching - and gives them notice that they need to catch up)

But I really don't see how a 6 week course can really make up for what kids have not learned in 11 years.

Both of my kids did terrible on the SATs. Both had very good grades in high school. Both of my children are successful college students. One is even on the Deans list at her school, which is a good university. I do not believe the SATs measure how well a child will perform in college.

>>But I really don't see how a 6 week course can really make up for what kids have not learned in 11 years.<<

a. It doesn't have to cover "11 years." You think an SAT prep course starts with the first grade "What's 2+2?"

b. It covers a narrow set of academic skills. AFAIK, for instance, there's no chemistry on the basic math/English SAT, or physics or a lot of specialized subject matter that kids take in school.