
New SAT, New Problems - tokenadult
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/new-sat-new-problems/384596/?single_page=true
======
BlackJack
Here's the College Board's page on the redesigned SAT:
[https://www.collegeboard.org/delivering-
opportunity/sat/rede...](https://www.collegeboard.org/delivering-
opportunity/sat/redesign)

Here's a 200 page PDF on the new format with lots of sample questions:
[https://www.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat/delivering-
opportunity/...](https://www.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat/delivering-
opportunity/test_specifications_for_the_redesigned_sat_102414.pdf)

The sentence completions are gone; now we have words in context. Essay is
twice as long. No independent writing section. Math is more algebra and
prob/stats focused, especially with graph and chart interpretations. Geometry
has been all but eliminated, coming in at 6 total questions in the Additional
Topics in Math (paraphrasing) category.

In my view, the main issue with this exam is that it's more coachable now. I
feel you can learn less math/reading/writing now and just exploit the nature
of the SAT to do well on the new exam. Good for test prep, not so great for
everyone else. The main issue is that you kind of have to dumb yourself down
to answer the questions - if you start actually thinking critically, you'll
run into trouble.

~~~
yummyfajitas
More coachable is probably the goal. A big problem for the college board is
that insofar as the SAT is difficult, math driven, and g loaded, Asian people
tend to score too high.

This creates political pressure for colleges to stop using the SAT in
admissions, an existential threat to the college board.

~~~
graeme
>More coachable is probably the goal. A big problem for the college board is
that insofar as the SAT is difficult, math driven, and g loaded, Asian people
tend to score too high.

How would this help? I've taught SAT courses, and Asian students are
overrepresented in those prep courses. Those cultures tend to have a habit of
using external prep.

Note for posterity: I'm not saying Asian overrepresentation is a bad thing.
Just stating a fact about courses I taught. If the college board's motive is
to reduce Asian scores, I don't think they've picked a good method.

------
rayiner
> It is fine—good, even—to ask students to carry out these tasks, but in many
> cases these are skills that students unfortunately haven’t yet mastered. If
> they aren’t being taught to think about graphs that way, let alone
> articulate their reasoning in that matter, chances are only the smartest (or
> well-prepared) teens will be able to arrive at the correct answer under the
> time and emotional pressure of the test.

But isn't that the point of the SAT? To sort the kids who have mastered these
skills from the ones that haven't?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The original point of the SAT was to measure "aptitude" in order to identify
students might perform well in college, but did not have good opportunities to
demonstrate that in high school. This was before things like "aptitude" and
"intelligence" became dirty words.

~~~
ihnorton
Steven Pinker argues for admissions based on standardized tests, in part
because he contends that the current Ivy League admissions process suffers
from "eye-of-newt-wing-of-bat mysticism that jerks teenagers and their moms
around and conceals unknown mischief.":

[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-
league...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league-
should-judge-students-standardized-tests)

------
abat
Seems like the math portion is becoming less about math and more like an MBA
reading comprehension test.

~~~
harryh
It's actually become less about wrote manipulation of symbols and more about a
deeper understanding of actual math concepts.

The latter is, indeed, harder.

~~~
camelite
One thing rote learning is good for is how to spell in languages whose
pronunciation and spelling are inconsistent, like English.

(sorry)

~~~
harryh
Hahahah. Yes. You got me there!

------
strathmeyer
So some questions can only be answered by smart people. What are they trying
to measure exactly?? As a smart kid, I never understand why people were always
trying to knock us down. The other kids would brag to me that they got to take
their SATs untimed. I got a perfect score and still got rejected from five
colleges.

------
danielweber
I know what that graph-line question is trying to ask, but I can't figure out
those possible answers.

~~~
mynameishere
The answers are so ungrammatical and mystifying that it almost seems like the
designers were trying to kill the test on purpose. The "correct" answer is
this:

 _The predicted height increase in centimeters for one centimeter increase in
the first metacarpal bone_

...as far as I can tell, the answer written for sentient humans would be
something like:

 _As the length of the metacarpal bone increases, so does height._

But my translation is so obvious that I sat there for five minutes wondering
if I was looking at some kind of otherworldly trick question. Nope. They just
made a wretched problem.

Obviously, the original SAT was an IQ test (as the article says) that allowed
poor but smart kids from poor schools to get into college. But that process is
self-defeating, as poor areas have all their smartest people leave for
everything from state schools to Harvard. As inequality becomes more rigid
groups like the College Board are flailing and improvising.

~~~
nilkn
I think their answer is perfectly sensible and perfectly grammatical. It's
also clearly correct according to even the most basic notion of slope as rise
over run. I honestly don't see the issue with this question. Not only does
your answer not fit grammatically, but it's also less precise.

~~~
comex
When I skimmed the list of answers, they also looked wrong to me, but this is
because I saw the answers (which start at the top of the page) before the
question (which is at the bottom). Because the answers started with capital
letters, I initially read them expecting a full sentence, mentally replacing
"increase" with "increases":

"The predicted height increases in centimeters for one centimeter increase in
the first metacarpal bone." (True, although the height also increases in any
other unit for any amount of increase in the bone.)

"The predicted first metacarpal bone increases in centimeters for every
centimeter increase in height." (Ditto, but this looks more correct because it
has it increasing for every/any centimeter increase in height, rather than
specifically one.)

Judging by the parent comment, I think they may have done the same, but failed
to notice the correct interpretation? In any case, while as a native speaker,
I only saw it that way for a few seconds, I can certainly imagine that someone
speaking English as a second language could be thrown off.

The answers also do have odd wording - they refer to the bone itself
"increasing", rather than its length, and the first answer's "for one
centimeter increase" could be interpreted as either "for (one centimeter)
increase", which lacks an article, or "for one (centimeter increase)", which
is not ambiguous but not proper terminology either.

I think the design could be improved - first by avoiding the weird inverted
question/answer position if at all possible, second by avoiding capital
letters, third by using easier to parse wording:

"the predicted increase in height, in centimeters, for every one centimeter
increase in the length of the first metacarpal bone"

------
keypusher
Can someone explain why both answers A and B are not valid on the metacarpal
problem? If the line indicates a linear relationship between these two values,
and the choice of axis is arbitrary, it seems to me you could just as well
predict one from the other as vice versa.

~~~
Chinjut
Sure, you could just as well predict one from the other. But the question asks
"What is the following is the best interpretation of the _slope_ of the line
of best fit in the context of this problem?", and you are expected to
interpret "slope" in the usual jargon sense (as the the ratio of vertical
change to horizontal change, rather than vice versa).

(By "vertical" and "horizontal" here, I mean with respect to the graph, not
the interpretation, although it happens to be the case that the vertical axis
corresponds to height and the horizontal axis corresponds to length.)

~~~
keypusher
This then seems like less of a test of math ability and more of a test of
whether or not you have effectively absorbed the jargon and conventions around
certain math concepts. Maybe that's what they want, but it doesn't really seem
like problem solving at all.

~~~
copascetic
See my other response, but I don't think you're giving the question enough
credit. The other responses don't mention the fact that the line would likely
be different if we swapped the variables. The question tests both whether you
know what a line of best fit represents, and also whether you know that the
correlation in one direction is not necessarily equal to the correlation in
the other direction. This is something that could be covered in an algebra
class with a unit on linear regression. I remember seeing a demonstration and
explanation of this in mine.

~~~
bsder
Except that there is _no reason_ to choose the correlation in one direction
versus the other in the given problem.

It's a bad question.

------
ausjke
It's very hard to be perfect when you want to get competitive while
considering 'no-child-left-behind' in college education. There are many
financial aids, the famous affirmative action, the public and private college
system separation, local community colleges for some low-incomes, the rich
pays more tax while the poor pays none, the K-12 for all etc are all into
play, if those are not enough to care for the disadvantaged, we may just open
the door to take whoever wants to get into which college on a lottery basis?
do we really think that communism world has arrived?

------
jcampbell1
In the 3rd question, if the fee were 6%, would the right answer be 7075 or
7076? I don't know the high school rules of rounding. Are you allowed to round
to a number that doesn't satisfy the question? Fortunately they picked values
where it is not ambiguous, but that question could be really nasty.

~~~
danielweber
7075.471698 technically rounds to 7075. Less than 0.5, round down. 0.5 or
greater, round up.[1]

But saying "what's the least" and then "round your answer" at the same time is
silly. If you ask a student "each bus holds 10 people; how many buses do you
need to move 32 people?" the answer is 4. I would hate to be asked to "round"
that answer.

7075 rupees is too few; 7076 is the first whole number that is "enough."

The real meat of that question comes down to the student being able to figure
out "do you multiply by 0.96, or do you divide by 1.04?" And the sample
exchange with the fee is pure filler to distract the student.

 _EDIT_ Rerad Blackjack31's link, and you will find the original question,
which isn't as butchered as it seems at The Atlantic. The present the example
rate because they first ask the student to calculate the exchange rate. _END
EDIT_

Plus, what about fluctuations in the daily exchange rate? The student is
supposed to assume that isn't changing, but then why in the world are we
talking about the _daily_ exchange rate? Say it's a fixed exchange rate.

[1] I had a third grade teacher who insisted you could round to the tenths
position and then the unit position, and always get the same answer if you
just immediately rounded to the unit position. This is the test case that
proves her wrong, but for some reason she didn't want to hear it.[2]

[2] I was in some ways a prat.

~~~
Chinjut
I'm glad you pointed this out to your teacher. It is worth noting, though,
that if it weren't for the arbitrary "If it's exactly halfway inbetween, you
should just round it up" rule taught as received wisdom in school, your
teacher would've been on stronger ground. And it is reasonable that they were
attempting, in their way, to convey (or even fully come to terms with
themself) the understanding that the nearest integers to a value are always
also among the nearest integers to the nearest multiples of 0.1 to that value
(and all the generalizations of this); it's just that sometimes there are
other nearest integers to nearest multiples of 0.1 as well.

~~~
danielweber
The "0.5 rounds up" is kind of arbitrary, but it has the advantage of "you
only need to look one digit out to round."

4.49 obviously rounds to 4.

4.51 obviously rounds to 5.

4.50, since it "should"[1] follow the same rules as any other number that
starts with "4.5", thus rounds to 5.

Say I were looking at a real number of arbitrary length, such that it starts
with 4.500000000000... and _maybe_ has a non-zero digit somewhere in it before
it terminates. With the "round up on .5" rule, I don't have to keep on reading
out indefinitely to round it.

[1] This "should" is assertion.

------
anon4
On the posted question, I don't understand why only A is the right answer,
when B is also correct. The two quantities are correlated, so having any one
of the two lets you predict with some margin of error the other.

~~~
sarah2079
You are right about being able to predict either, but the specific quantity
described in A is the slope, while in B it is the inverse of the slope.

------
chriswarbo
Am I the only one who clicked this thinking it was a boolean satisfiability
challenge?

