Skip to comments.Revised SAT Won’t Include Obscure Vocabulary Words
Posted on 04/16/2014 5:18:01 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The College Board on Wednesday will release many details of its revised SAT, including sample questions and explanations of the research, goals and specifications behind them.
We are committed to a clear and open SAT, and today is the first step in that commitment, said Cyndie Schmeiser, the College Boards chief of assessment, in a conference call on Monday, previewing the changes to be introduced in the spring of 2016.
She said the 211-page test specifications and supporting materials being shared publicly include everything a student needs to know to walk into that test and not be surprised.
The overall scoring will return to the old 1600 scales, based on a top score of 800 in reading and math.A New SAT Aims to Realign With SchoolworkMARCH 5, 2014 David Coleman is focusing on ways to encourage low-income students to go to select colleges.The Story Behind the SAT OverhaulMARCH 6, 2014 One big change is in the vocabulary questions, which 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. (The right answer is departed.)
The test will last three hours, with another 50 minutes for an optional essay in which students will be asked to analyze a text and how the author builds an argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Nice. Lemme see. What do you call a 4-legged, furry animal that says ‘Meow’? I got it — cat!!! C-A-T!!!
I’m a jeenyus!!! Give me a gubbermint job!!!!
Nothing like dumbing-down tests to make ya feel smarter!
“What fo dat woord?”
This thread is pedantic. (Google it)
They can use different words—but math is still math.
This jejune thread is enervating.
Obscure words are fine for masters and doctoral theses, specialized technical writing, and specific legal terms.
As a person who has handled analyses of millions of dollars worth of assets, the key in writing an understandable report is to write at a 12 year old level. Words of 3 syllables or less unless absolutely necessary. Words that clearly state the findings and meanings you are trying to convey.
The extreme use of obscure legal terms, for example, has led to the requirement that contracts be written in common language.
The change in requirements do not reflect a ‘dumbing down’ of the test. Rather a reflection of what an individual will typically use in 98% of their college life.
(used to be a college test prepper) Those “obscure words” are fair if they’re presented in context and the student has to ascertain their meaning from that. They’re fair in analogies if roots, prefixes and suffixes make it reasonable to figure out their meaning. But multiple choice lists for the meaning?....it does disadvantage students whose language skills did not originate in very erudite environments.
No, math is not still math under “common core.” Now there are “friendly numbers” !!!
I refuse to engage in blatant sesquipedalianism.
Some would call that obtuse.
The purpose of a high standard is to differentiate the levels of acquired intelligence and achievement so that selective schools can identify the very best students among the merely competent ones. Inclusion of some obscure words helped to set those truly superior students apart in fields where language mastery is valued. Thanks to politically correct pressure, the SAT will soon measure only a level of functional competence in language, with excellence ignored and therefore eventually discouraged. When those who are average demand and get higher scores that they do not merit, the system has been dumbed down. An average society despises and punishes merit.
“This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!” - attributed to Winston Churchill
Fact is, a Japanese kid in an American school does better than a Japanese kid in a school in Japan. Same thing for any ethnic group you can name, except for a particular ethnic group that cannot be named.
Since that ethnic group has an average IQ of 85, it is impossible to raise their scores. In the name of "equality" however, it is possible to cripple the high-achievers and drag their scores down.
It's not fair that some people are more successful than others, you see.
This thread is esoteric and nebulous.
When I was 12, I was reading at college level, or so the tests told me. I don't remember much from sixth grade, but I do recall my class read "The Count of Monte Cristo". That was a challenge.
Back then, in the 60s, California public schools were very good.
All I have to say is thank God I went to school and college at a time when there were still some standards and actual measures of achievement and knowledge.
I would caution you against using that word around Warden Norton. It brought a very negative reaction from him in the context that it was said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.