What I remember from SAT prep courses was a lot of strategy about how to take the test. How to figure out the vocabulary portion without actually knowing the words. Whether or not to guess and how to guess if you do decide to. That kind of thing. Not actually learning any of the vocabulary.

>>How to figure out the vocabulary portion without actually knowing the words. Whether or not to guess and how to guess if you do decide to.<<

Which underlines the limitations of multiple choice questions, and indeed tests of vocabulary in isolation.

>>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.<<

It sounds more and more like a very blunt instrument for that.

Grommet there is a certain amount of memorisation that gets you to that pt of being able to problem solve. Disdain <<arithmetic>> all u want but certain parts of it must be committed to memory to do well in maths. As in other areas Latin for example, bags of memory work before one can translate with elegance.

SAT tests tell you what a person knows in comparison with their peers within limited areas.

It does;t tell you what they know or what talents they may have in the particular area they decide to major in.

It also doesn't tell you how hard they decide to work while in college.

It does provide some basis for comparison - since standards can vary tremendously between different school districts - and what is an A in some places will be a C in other places. And it also depends on how many AP and honors courses the student is taking - versus a more basic course.

If the university knows you come from a high quality school district they will give more credit grades. If they know you come from a low quality school they will take that into account as well. The problem is there are so man districts that they don;t have a good read on many of them - so the SAT gives a means of comparison.

<i>SAT tests tell you what a person knows in comparison with their peers within limited areas.</i>

Not really.

<i>It does provide some basis for comparison</i>

Not a very good one.

<i>Grommet there is a certain amount of memorisation that gets you to that pt of being able to problem solve.</i>

A certain amount, but not nearly as much as most public school teachers would have you believe.

<i>Disdain <<arithmetic>> all u want but certain parts of it must be committed to memory to do well in maths.</i>

I don't disdain arithmetic. I disdain arithmetic as an end unto itself. Being Rainman is a parlor trick and memorizing multiplication tables is a waste of time. My brother is insanely good at arithmetic. Seriously, kind of like Rainman. He is otherwise a moron.

<i>As in other areas Latin for example, bags of memory work before one can translate with elegance.</i>

And translating Latin is a super useful activity. I don't contest that memorization might help with low-value things like re-translating something that has been translated by someone else many, many, many, many times. Memorization also helps me kick ass at Trivial Pursuit. It is of limited value in the useful parts of my life.

I took the original Stanley Kaplan SAT Prep course. When I say original, it was taught by Stanley Kaplan himself in the basement of his Brooklyn home while his wife taught another group in another part of the basement. All materials were mimeographed and as I remember consisted of practice questions, tips, and shortcuts particularly for the math - I found those shortcuts useful and did raise my math score by over 100 points from the first time I took the SAT. That Kaplan guy really did well.

tg tells us,

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

Uh, well, y'know, like you goes, like I don't like and I like go like maybe your not, like, right, y'know.

Happier now?

((I))

Hi Nan,

>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. <

or many years there has been a group of "experts" who have claimed that the SAT (or ACT) is not a good predictor of success in college.

They basr

Belay that.

Hi Nan,

>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. <

or many years there has been a group of "experts" who have claimed that the SAT (or ACT) is not a good predictor of success in college.

They base their argument on the fact that the test can't discern if someone with a 1400 will have a higher GPA upon leaving a college than one with a 1300.

This is true. There is not a one-to-one correlation between test score and final GPA.

However, there is a very strong correlation between having a test score above a certain level and graduating - especially from the more competitive schools.

The SAT is a "go/No Go" gage, not a speedometer.

As far as high-school GPA goes - it most certainly depends upon the high school.

((I))

Hi chum,

Thanks for the post.

It's even better when "italicized" is struck through.

Directions: Match the <s>italicized</s> slanty word or phrase with its meaning.

((I))

> 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.<

IOW:

I'm not a detail person. I'm a concept person. I leave those sorts of things to the scribblers and bean counters.

I never could learn my multiplication tables, but I'm a wiz at misusing complex computer programs.

((I))

Hi Bas,

>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.<

Are you sure that the desire to reshape the test instrument is solely to improve its predictive value and is not also driven by the desire on the part of some "educators" to make their product look better than it is?

Why is it that all of our State Colleges and Universities have remedial math and English classes?

If the language portion of the SAT is adjusted to give higher grades to some participants they won't have to take remedial English.

They'll be able to flunk out a semester earlier.

((I))

<I>The SAT is a "go/No Go" gage, not a speedometer</I>

And the cutoff is/was so low as to be useless. When I was applying to school, the Penn recruiter said it was 1,000. I would think that once you adjusted for GPA there wouldn't be hardly any 1,000 point scorers left.

Hi PL,

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

You are correct. That is why it is now known only as the SAT, not the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

It took the education establishment some years to admit it, though.
.....................................
Hey Du,

>Ira, your "answer" of "Wow. Just like in grade school." speaks volumes about your own understanding of the test.<

Enlighten me, please, as to where I have gone wrong.

.............................
Hi NM,

>yet there is an entire industry built around studying FOR this test?

This is not new. After the young Winston Churchill failed the entrance exam for Sandhurst, he was provided with a "crammer".

I think he got in on his third try.

>If it truly is a measure of where a student is educationally, then shouldn't students go in cold?<

Yes, but how do you enforce that?

Wouldn't one expect proper parents to do whatever they can to help their offspring?

((I))

<<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. (The right answer is “departed.”)>>

How about "left"?

What is a "vocabulary word"?

Might it be a "word"

The cutoff for admission or consideration? I'm guessing it's the latter, and the Penn recruiter was telling you that if you're below 500, your app goes in the waste basket.

But once you reach consideration stage, wouldn't relative scores weigh into which applicants get picked and which don't? I honestly don't know because I've never worked in admissions and it's been a million years since I applied to college.

Hi nyt,

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

I believe that there is good evidence that it doesn't.
....................................

Hey PL,

>>whether you'll succeed at a future endeavor.<<

It sounds more and more like a very blunt instrument for that.<

It is.

It is good at determining if Johnny or Susie are likely to graduate, not whether they will graduate with a GPA of 3.147.

((I))

<I>The cutoff for admission or consideration? I'm guessing it's the latter, and the Penn recruiter was telling you that if you're below 500, your app goes in the waste basket. </I>

What they were saying was that the only thing the SAT told them was that those scoring above 1400 tended to do well and those below 1000 tended to do poorly. In terms of ira's contention that it acts as a go/no-go trigger, that means the trigger would likely be around 1000. But for the majority of the students, they were part of a vast middle where the SAT was no help in differentiation.

I don't see how there was a large pool of students that would have met other criteria for consideration (grades, class rank, essay, recommendations, etc.) and scored below 1000. What is the point of a test that doesn't really give you much useful information? I suspect that is why the SAT has declined in importance and why the SAT folks are adapting in an attempt to save their cash cow.

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

William F. Buckley must be rapidly revolving on an axis in his sepulcher.

If a word is "obscure" or not is often a matter of opinion.

I find that I sometimes use words that I can see not everyone in the room understands. I'm sorry - this is not my problem - it is theirs. It's perfectly possible for someone not to understand one particular word - but when the problem occurs frequently - then I think that person has had a poor education - and really need to somehow step up their comprehension.

And no - I am not picking obscure words - or even close.

"...and why the SAT folks are adapting in an attempt to save their cash cow." Yes!

I love using impressive words. It makes me look sophisticated. Right now my favourite is narissist.

"I find that I sometimes use words that I can see not everyone in the room understands."

And it goes both ways. And if I remember, I try to look up the offending word, though sometimes its meaning can be gleaned from the context.

Reminds me of when Sally Struther's character on All in the Family started reading the dictionary.

One may or may not agree with (or may argue the meaning of) Wittgenstein, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world." But I think it is safe to say that it is very, very valuable to be able to use words with precise shades of meaning and to use them appropriately. It's helpful to be able to process word meanings quickly since any job has its own jargon. (Quick, what profession would discuss botrytis, pavé, Williamsburg, and fixative in the same day, plus, say, dubonnet as an adjective?)

But I haven't seen that developed by "obscure" vocabulary. It's developed through reading, listening, conversation, observation: context. I don't think that learning or memorizing words in isolation is the most tremendously profitable use of time.

lol, vincenzo!

much to my dismay, my son refused to do a speck of preparation for the SAT; which is why I am not bragging on the kids thread.

Latin helps enormously in acquisition of English vocab travelthrowup. Hi value or lo value, lol, you act as,tho fund of knowledge isn't at all important so I guess u r fine as long as you have Wikipedia at your fingertips lol! Yr attitude towards education akin to low level technician not professional. Course that may b your job is so apologies all round not critising your station just attitude. If latter product of former then further apologies as u obv can't rise above upbringing [but praps u could there if actually educated so praps there is a value eh?]

<i>Latin helps enormously in acquisition of English vocab</i>

If acquisition of vocabulary is your be all and end all, then knock yourself out. Out of curiosity, is Latin your first language? Because your English is pretty bad.

<i>Hi value or lo value, lol, you act as,tho fund of knowledge isn't at all important</i>

Spelling is important too.

<i>I guess u r fine as long as you have Wikipedia at your fingertips lol!</i>

Well-developed research skills are probably the single most important thing you can take from your education.

<i>Yr attitude towards education akin to low level technician not professional. Course that may b your job is so apologies all round not critising your station just attitude.</i>

Ha. I'm quite certain that I have a job that involves far more responsibility and which pays far more than yours. Don't worry about my "station".

<i>If latter product of former then further apologies as u obv can't rise above upbringing [but praps u could there if actually educated so praps there is a value eh?]</i>

For the record, I was an exceptional student. And I scored over 600 on the SAT verbal section when I took it in 7th grade. When I took it in high school, I scored over 700 on both the verbal and the math.

You seem to have some unresolved emotional issues. You should seek help with that. But focus on the spelling and learning to write coherently first.

>>For the record, I was an exceptional student. And I scored over 600 on the SAT verbal section when I took it in 7th grade.<<

I got laid in the 7th grade.

But you were 21.

<i>I got laid in the 7th grade.</i>

Altar boy?

tg: Interesting that your mind would go in that direction first.
cold: No, but it happened in my first car.

Me too Vin. Datsun B210. Very cramped. Towards the end (20 seconds) I had no idea which way was up.

Lol travelvomit, admit my best comm is not on iPhone.sorry to have offended, usually dont point out such things to yr kind, my bad.

cold: Perhaps if you had scored a 700 on your SATs ...

<i>sorry to have offended</i>

No you aren't. You intended offense. Frankly, apologizing just makes you come across as even more pathetic than you already did. Nothing worse than a phony.

Hey V,

>William F. Buckley must be rapidly revolving on an axis in his sepulcher.

Three obscure words, revolving, axis, sepulcher, in one sentence.

Bad boy.
..............................................
>Reminds me of when Sally Struther's character on All in the Family started reading the dictionary.<

Doesn't everyone do that in grade school?
...................................

Hey V,

First car - age 16-17.
7th grade??????


((I))

Ira: I was on a learner's permit.

Sorry - none of those word are "obscure". Anyone who reads at a 12th grade level should have no trouble with them.

I know a lot of people don;t read at that level - but that is NOT a good thing. And it doesn't make the word obscure.

One of my colleagues has a sweatshirt with the line

ESCHEW OBFUSCATION

which I grant is probably beyond 12th grade - but I think college students should understand. (Although most of them were probably never exposed to it by their English professors.

What does sneezing have to do with obfuscation?

Travelgormless, you sir r a hairless sheep. Jam betwixt an elephants toes. Streaky rashers gone green in t cupboard. It is not phony to give a fake apology when all r sposed to know it is fake. U r a daft bigger. Bigger. Bugger. Finally iPad learns to spell,!