The only free resources I had access to during my time in high school were the after-school prep courses that were voluntarily run by a few of the teachers. I found those sessions to be invaluable for getting acclimated to the format of the SAT.
I still have my gripes with the college application process, though. I think the biggest issue America has with college placement is how much we as a society place on our alma mater. It's a bragging right for parents to say that their kid went to X when their neighbor's kid went to Y. The market for getting into a respectable university has become increasingly competitive, to the point where families that have enough income will spend good money on tutors for the SATs, tutors for the AP/IB courses their kid is taking, and even tutors that will help their kid make their application look good for the admissions officer.
I really do hope this will even out the playing field for this one aspect of the application process.
I'd rather see college admissions continue to move away from standardized testing monopolies (like the SAT) than for education innovators like Khan to get in bed with the incumbents. Free SAT prep is good; a college application that doesn't ask for expensive tests is even better.
What would you suggest? Imperfect sure, but the SAT and ACT are a standard measure of student's abilities. Not a popular opinion but I believe the SAT and ACT are invaluable and I'm fine with tests that measure reasoning ability, text comprehension, and writing skills as a basis for who can attend different calibres of universities.
>Indeed, students' grades and the academic rigor of their courses weighs more heavily in college admissions decision than standardized test scores, class rank or professed interest in a particular school, according to the National Association for College Admission Counseling's 2013 "State of College Admission" report released in January.
You didn't actually suggest anything. And while many schools do not require these tests for admission, most require them for scholarship consideration.
Another example is BYU which officially at states that gpa, act/sat and extra-curriculars each way 1/3 in the admissions process but an admissions officer confided that "it basically comes down to ACT scores."
I wonder how early my 2-month-old niece will be able to achieve a high school education. Not that the resources weren't always available, but it's just so accessible now through efforts like Khan (mostly Khan). We could easily have kids work their way through a high school curriculum in half the time, or maybe give them more time for socialization and interesting projects during the traditional school day.
I really want this to be a reality. When a kid learns how to find out information themselves and be a self-guided learner, I can easily see an average school day taking only a few hours, not 7 or 8. That leaves more time for extra curriculars, a job/internship, or even learning more about topics that interest the student. What I remember most from public school is how much time I wasted, and how little I actually learned. (I am from the US, if that helps).
I'm not trying to derail the comment thread here, so if you want to talk more about this, my email address is in my profile, but...
This is basically what my experience was like as a home-schooled student. A lot of self-guided learning, school days significantly less than 7 or 8 hours, and lots of extra-curricular activities.
This was the most infuriating thing for me with my daughter. She was tested in kindergarten to read at a 3rd grade level. She also was beginning to learn multiplication, fractions, etc.
I went to her school and asked her about special programs for her, potentially skipping grades, etc. Their response was essentially that in a couple years time the other kids would catch up. Well, of course the other kids will catch up, you're going to tie a big anchor to my daughter that she has to drag through a bunch of boring curriculum she already knows.
I was in the same boat as your daughter, and the only reason I was able to skip grades is because my elementary school was awful (so I looked smarter), and my mother is excellent at dealing with bureaucracy. I know very bright people who would have very easily been able to skip grades; much of the material students learn is repeated about 3 times over the course of 12 years.
Here in Israel, we have a growing phenomenon of high school students studying for a B.Sc degree, especially in CS, during their last few years of high-school. Not only do they save a couple of years of their career trajectory, they also get a shot at significantly better placement during their army service. Israel's a small place, so most places have a pretty good university one or two bus rides away.
One could argue that high school is a bit unnecessary, and a good move would be to simply skip it.
You can kind of achieve this in the U.S., at least in my school district, through AP classes or taking equivalent classes at the local junior college to satisfy high school credits. The structure of the school day was still exactly the same, but it allowed you to knock out two years of undergrad in high school.
I've never heard of a anyone completing 2 years of undergrad in high school. Maybe a course or two in the 2nd year level, but certainly not the entire curriculum.
I do have a friend from Israel who got his Bachelor's degree at 18 at the same time he finished high school. I can't see that happening in the U.S. system.
The US has a few "early acceptance" colleges like Bard College (https://simons-rock.edu/) where you can get a HS equivalency and Bachelors whenever you're deemed ready. I had a friend who went to Simons Rock after his Freshman Year of HS - he got his BA right before his 20th birthday.
I was officially a junior after my first quarter (three quarters to the school year) of undergrad. I stayed much later than that, but that's because I took additional classes, not because I needed the time to earn credits.
The first two years of undergrad at UC, by design, are for the general education requirements. You're not even supposed to take classes in your major until year 3. It shouldn't be hard to skip much of that.
I started at UCLA with around 96 (quarter) credits from a mix of college-level courses taken at the local junior college and AP classes. It was (very marginally) helpful to start out as a "junior" on paper, because I got a slight amount of priority when registering for classes.
I didn't know at the time that they kick you out after a certain number of credits (around 240?), and this actually affected my choice of double major. I took a watered-down "linguistics and computer science" BA as my double instead of the full "linguistics" BA, partly because the unit cap was bearing down on me.
Edit: it was "watered-down" because it required a ton of CS classes that I had already taken.
Further, finishing most of the physical sciences requirements in high school meant that I wasn't exposed to some awesome professors in college. I imagine that some students who might have a deep interest in chemistry but a disinterested high school teacher never bother to explore the subject in college if they pass the Chem AP test.
By participating in test prep isn't the College Board basically saying their test has no value? It's supposed to test if your education has prepared you for college. They're now basically saying the SAT is a test of how well you've prepared for the SAT.
But it's always been like this. The College Board has official test prep books and online courses one can buy. Plus, many schools also offer SAT test prep classes one can take. This test has always been worthless (my bias in this last statement).
Like most tests, my personal opinion is that it tests both how well you know the material as well as how familiar you are with the format and content of the test. There is value in the former, and hopefully more access to preparation materials can alleviate some of the variance in the latter.
For students trying to achieve high scores (which are a prerequisite to getting into most "good" schools), this won't help.
Two summers ago I took courses at Summa [1], an SAT prep course in the San Diego area. The valuable material wasn't the classes reviewing geometry or speed-reading -- it's taking and reviewing the SAT repeatedly. Organizations like Summa can produce SAT-like practice tests, because the highly-prepared kids have probably taken all of the example tests the College Board provides.
The SAT is an easy test; no individual question is really that hard. Getting a high score is about knowing how to take the test, and this is learned by taking it many times. Unless the College Board releases many more practice tests (with answer keys and explanations), I don't think this program will mean much.
Note that I'm talking about getting very high scores -- the SAT is a completely different game when your goal is to get into ultra-competitive schools. For the average person who might not really understand what to study for, this program will be great.
Can you explain what you mean by "knowing how to take the test"?
I ask because I got a very respectable SAT score and only took one practice test. All my other studying was just working problems of the type which are on the test. I found the only skill required was knowing how to solve the problems asked.
I have heard this said many times, that standardized tests are just testing your skill at taking tests. But it does not match with my perception of my experience. I am willing to be shown otherwise, which is why I ask.
By this I mean being familiar with the types of problems the SAT asks, and being aware of gotchas / features of these problems. Familiarity with the test makes it easier to take the test effectively to save time for the few genuinely challenging questions in each section.
The material on the SAT is super easy. It's about knowing how to read and analyze simple text and being able to do basic high school math. Despite this, kids taking advanced (or college-level) courses in math and the humanities don't do terribly well on the SAT on the first try. SAT prep is about mastering the esoteric parts of the SAT, not its basic subject-matter.
EDIT: I was taking college-level courses before the SAT, and I got a 1700-1900 on the first few tries. After a summer taking a dozen tests, I got to a 2280. The only new genuine "knowledge" I picked up was the meaning of some arcane words. The rest was familiarity.
Maybe it's just been too long, but I don't remember any gotchas. Do you have any examples?
Obviously you want to know what types of problems will be included, but familiarizing yourself with the types of problems seems so basic that it would hardly take multiple practice tests.
Again, it's been a long time since I've taken the SAT, and I only took it once, so I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong. I'm just trying to understand a comment I've heard many times and never understood.
Multiple choice answers often follow a pattern, after all they are trying to get you to pick the wrong answer when you make a mistake along the way. This causes the answers to group around the right answer. Test makers understand this and try and avoid telegraphing like that, but there is still some level of it going on.
In high school my calculus teacher was part of an experiment where they gave teachers the SAT. They gave the teachers the regular version of the SAT as a baseline and then gave the teachers a special version that contained only the answers choices in the multiple choice without the questions. Teachers essentially had to use their intuition about the types of answers the SAT looks for to take the test. The teachers each scored in the same approximate percentile as when they all received both the questions and answers. That is to say, the teachers that knew how to analyze the test itself (not the questions) scored better than those who didn't.
Am I reading you right? Are you saying teachers scored the same whether they were able to read the questions before answering or not? If so, do you have a link to this study? I feel like this is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.
I think the claim was the same relative to other people under the same conditions, rather than the same relative to invariants like getting all questions correct. That's certainly much more believable.
Nailed it. At least in my day, tactics were the most important factor in standardized test (SAT, GRE) scores. You could draw some tables to solve the logic puzzles, and skim the "reading comprehension" BS looking for keywords based on the questions. The only thing that took serious cramming was vocabulary.
That said, SAT prep is a great way to separate rich, anxious parents from their money, given that in NY (where else...) tutoring companies charge up to $800/hr.
For example, experienced standardized test takers know how to identify correct answers without even reading the questions: http://satninja.com/sat-critical-reading/how-to-answer-sat-c.... These kinds of advantages become apparent the more you take the test. Sure, it's possible to do well by simply by knowing the concepts tested, but you can also gain a huge advantages with just exposure and experience taking practice tests.
I think I understand better now the claim being made.
It isn't so much that someone who knows the material won't do well unless they know the test, it's that someone who knows the material less well can do better simply by learning some tricks.
That, and competitive admissions mean that you can get outsized returns by investing in a bit of high-grade test prep. A 90th percentile student who takes test prep might wind up getting the same score (and the same Ivy League appeal!) as a 98th percentile student who didn't.
The College Board is releasing previously-unreleased SAT questions on Khan Academy, with answers and explanations [1]. The College Board announcement emphasized the importance of practice, as well as transparency about preparation materials such as practice tests.
While we don't have an ideal test-like practice environment yet, I hope that we will be able to provide one in the future.
I should have emphasized that full-length tests is what I think is valuable here.
College Board has been offering daily SAT questions by email for awhile now (and there's no lack of individual test questions online either), but what's useful is a full test, with questions of varying difficulty and a time limit enforced. Taking it on paper is important too; your score when you take the test in front a screen versus when you have paper, pencil, and a calculator won't be the same. There needs to be dozens of these tests -- I found myself getting better each time, but re-taking tests isn't helpful because I simply remembered my mistakes rather than improving my capacity to anticipate mistakes.
This is not at all to downplay the amazing work Khan Academy has been doing! I think this will be a big deal for a majority of high schoolers.
Thanks! Yes, I agree that full-length tests are important. We're not there yet, but I think we'll improve on that with time (there has been some talk of different styles of how/which/how many questions appear in an exercise for other reasons, and I think this just gives another reason to focus on that in the future).
Within the range of very high scores (I'm assuming you mean 1500+ excluding the W section) there is so little differentiation between candidates that anything outside of a perfect score is unworthy of comment. I would wager that the majority of students scoring in the 95th+ percentile are not who the College Board is targeting with this reworking of the exam. The difference between a 2200 and 2400 is insignificant on an application also sporting four years of perfect grades (or the stereotypical entrepreneur's report card of F's and A's) and voluntourism in sub-Saharan African.
What they seem to be aiming at is limiting the benefit of tutoring in the middle of the bell curve. The SAT is not a difficult test – there is no vocabulary in the CR section foreign to the average middle-brow New Yorker reader and the Maths section is as near a verbatim review of Massachusetts' 8th Grade Algebra I curriculum as you can find. Lazy but capable students who have otherwise been well-educated are enjoying the greatest boon from test practice, and this seems aimed at creating a more level playing field for those who are unable to afford such specialised tutoring.
Whether it will have much effect is anyone's guess...for those most affected by the inequity of US public schooling, I doubt a few months practising process of elimination and test taking strategies is going to rectify years of substandard tuition
You've expressed my point of view better than I ever could have. I tried to make it clear that this program will not change much for those who are 2+ standard deviations to the right of average. For the majority, this is a great deal.
Nicely put. I can't imagine this making a statistically discernible difference. There's already a surprising amount of free test material available online, not to mention how much is contained in just a $20 test prep book.
> Getting a high score is about knowing how to take the test, and this is learned by taking it many times.
This is silly. One way to learn to get a high score is to take the damn thing many times and waste hundreds of hours. The other way is to have a rich life full of deep conversations, lots of reading and writing, play with various sorts of puzzles and games, schoolwork taken seriously, real extracurricular projects, etc.
About half of the people I know who got above 1500 on the SAT, including a few who aced it, never studied for it explicitly, beyond a couple of practice tests given directly by their public high schools.
Though it is unpopular to say it, individuals differ in their innate academic aptitude. What is hard for some will be easy for others, and no amount of preparation can completely overcome this.
I took the SAT 4-ish years ago (junior year HS), and this is just wishful thinking.
I mean, all you've said is what is pretty self-evidently true, almost tautological: Be smart and you'll do well on the test. Well, obviously. If you were a genius you would not need to study very much at all for most things, SAT or not.
The point is that the best way to practice for the SAT, assuming you need practice is to take many tests.
I run a small test prep business in Phoenix (and will be applying with little hope to YC) so here are some insights on this..
* The deal with Khan Academy feels exciting and I want to see it succeed, but the vast majority of high school kids do not stick with online/self-guided test prep and those who do tend to be two standard deviations to the right anyway. I've heard from countless parents who hired us for in person tutoring after their kid didn't stay motivated with online prep. Moreover, students preparing on their own have a massive inclination to prep on sections they enjoy rather than their weakest sections.
* Video explanations inevitably fail to significantly change results because:
A) learning becomes passive
B) immediate feedback lacks
C) individual explanations for questions tend toward "tactics" rather than "strategy" or a cohesive approach that can be applied to a wide variety of problems
* the first online test prep that will be effective will be the prep that solves A, B, and C
* Seceral people here have stated the only way to prepare for this test is to take practice tests over and over again. That's like suggesting a MLB pitcher becomes an MLB pitcher just by throwing a ball over and over again. Sure practice is essential but if you don't have the right technique or the right muscle strength then you will never significantly improve.
* While the SAT and ACT are not IQ tests, SAT/ACT scores are correlated with IQ scores. If the tests don't feel "fair" well at least they are a heck of a lot more fair than gpa (grade inflation, teacher variance, school type, etc).
* Understanding how to "beat the test" is never explained by people who say that's all it takes. Developing smart test taking strategies develops good decision making strategies so preparing for the test is arguably as valuable as a strong test score.
* Those of you who say the SAT/ACT are really easy are being douchey. If you're on y combinator you're probably smart so you don't need to show your insecurity with statements like that. It isn't unlike amazing painters or violinists telling you what they do is "really easy."
* The real interesting thing is how the SAT is changing to become a better test.
I think this is great, because in many ways, the SAT is the least discriminatory metric colleges could use. Yes, poor kids often don't have access to test prep. But what other criteria do colleges use? Its a lot easier to afford test prep than to be in a financial position where you can get prestigious internships or do volunteer work in Africa or those things. And if you're disadvantaged with a tenuous home life, its easier to keep things together long enough to study for and do well on a test then to keep up a 4.0 GPA.
> While the SAT and ACT are not IQ tests, SAT/ACT scores are correlated with IQ scores.
The usual thing to point out here is that the SAT correlates with IQ tests roughly as well as two IQ tests correlate with each other. Discounting the branding, what is the sense in which the SAT and ACT aren't IQ tests?
> The real interesting thing is how the SAT is changing to become a better test.
The changes to the SAT over time usually reduce its discriminating power. Often the accompanying rhetoric indicates that they're supposed to reduce its discriminating power, but it's hard to describe that as "improving" the test.
51 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadThe only free resources I had access to during my time in high school were the after-school prep courses that were voluntarily run by a few of the teachers. I found those sessions to be invaluable for getting acclimated to the format of the SAT.
I still have my gripes with the college application process, though. I think the biggest issue America has with college placement is how much we as a society place on our alma mater. It's a bragging right for parents to say that their kid went to X when their neighbor's kid went to Y. The market for getting into a respectable university has become increasingly competitive, to the point where families that have enough income will spend good money on tutors for the SATs, tutors for the AP/IB courses their kid is taking, and even tutors that will help their kid make their application look good for the admissions officer.
I really do hope this will even out the playing field for this one aspect of the application process.
http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional
>Indeed, students' grades and the academic rigor of their courses weighs more heavily in college admissions decision than standardized test scores, class rank or professed interest in a particular school, according to the National Association for College Admission Counseling's 2013 "State of College Admission" report released in January.
Another example is BYU which officially at states that gpa, act/sat and extra-curriculars each way 1/3 in the admissions process but an admissions officer confided that "it basically comes down to ACT scores."
This is basically what my experience was like as a home-schooled student. A lot of self-guided learning, school days significantly less than 7 or 8 hours, and lots of extra-curricular activities.
I went to her school and asked her about special programs for her, potentially skipping grades, etc. Their response was essentially that in a couple years time the other kids would catch up. Well, of course the other kids will catch up, you're going to tie a big anchor to my daughter that she has to drag through a bunch of boring curriculum she already knows.
One could argue that high school is a bit unnecessary, and a good move would be to simply skip it.
I do have a friend from Israel who got his Bachelor's degree at 18 at the same time he finished high school. I can't see that happening in the U.S. system.
The first two years of undergrad at UC, by design, are for the general education requirements. You're not even supposed to take classes in your major until year 3. It shouldn't be hard to skip much of that.
I didn't know at the time that they kick you out after a certain number of credits (around 240?), and this actually affected my choice of double major. I took a watered-down "linguistics and computer science" BA as my double instead of the full "linguistics" BA, partly because the unit cap was bearing down on me.
Edit: it was "watered-down" because it required a ton of CS classes that I had already taken.
Further, finishing most of the physical sciences requirements in high school meant that I wasn't exposed to some awesome professors in college. I imagine that some students who might have a deep interest in chemistry but a disinterested high school teacher never bother to explore the subject in college if they pass the Chem AP test.
Two summers ago I took courses at Summa [1], an SAT prep course in the San Diego area. The valuable material wasn't the classes reviewing geometry or speed-reading -- it's taking and reviewing the SAT repeatedly. Organizations like Summa can produce SAT-like practice tests, because the highly-prepared kids have probably taken all of the example tests the College Board provides.
The SAT is an easy test; no individual question is really that hard. Getting a high score is about knowing how to take the test, and this is learned by taking it many times. Unless the College Board releases many more practice tests (with answer keys and explanations), I don't think this program will mean much.
Note that I'm talking about getting very high scores -- the SAT is a completely different game when your goal is to get into ultra-competitive schools. For the average person who might not really understand what to study for, this program will be great.
[1]: http://www.summaeducation.com/cms/
I ask because I got a very respectable SAT score and only took one practice test. All my other studying was just working problems of the type which are on the test. I found the only skill required was knowing how to solve the problems asked.
I have heard this said many times, that standardized tests are just testing your skill at taking tests. But it does not match with my perception of my experience. I am willing to be shown otherwise, which is why I ask.
The material on the SAT is super easy. It's about knowing how to read and analyze simple text and being able to do basic high school math. Despite this, kids taking advanced (or college-level) courses in math and the humanities don't do terribly well on the SAT on the first try. SAT prep is about mastering the esoteric parts of the SAT, not its basic subject-matter.
EDIT: I was taking college-level courses before the SAT, and I got a 1700-1900 on the first few tries. After a summer taking a dozen tests, I got to a 2280. The only new genuine "knowledge" I picked up was the meaning of some arcane words. The rest was familiarity.
Obviously you want to know what types of problems will be included, but familiarizing yourself with the types of problems seems so basic that it would hardly take multiple practice tests.
Again, it's been a long time since I've taken the SAT, and I only took it once, so I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong. I'm just trying to understand a comment I've heard many times and never understood.
That said, SAT prep is a great way to separate rich, anxious parents from their money, given that in NY (where else...) tutoring companies charge up to $800/hr.
It isn't so much that someone who knows the material won't do well unless they know the test, it's that someone who knows the material less well can do better simply by learning some tricks.
While we don't have an ideal test-like practice environment yet, I hope that we will be able to provide one in the future.
[1]: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat
College Board has been offering daily SAT questions by email for awhile now (and there's no lack of individual test questions online either), but what's useful is a full test, with questions of varying difficulty and a time limit enforced. Taking it on paper is important too; your score when you take the test in front a screen versus when you have paper, pencil, and a calculator won't be the same. There needs to be dozens of these tests -- I found myself getting better each time, but re-taking tests isn't helpful because I simply remembered my mistakes rather than improving my capacity to anticipate mistakes.
This is not at all to downplay the amazing work Khan Academy has been doing! I think this will be a big deal for a majority of high schoolers.
What they seem to be aiming at is limiting the benefit of tutoring in the middle of the bell curve. The SAT is not a difficult test – there is no vocabulary in the CR section foreign to the average middle-brow New Yorker reader and the Maths section is as near a verbatim review of Massachusetts' 8th Grade Algebra I curriculum as you can find. Lazy but capable students who have otherwise been well-educated are enjoying the greatest boon from test practice, and this seems aimed at creating a more level playing field for those who are unable to afford such specialised tutoring.
Whether it will have much effect is anyone's guess...for those most affected by the inequity of US public schooling, I doubt a few months practising process of elimination and test taking strategies is going to rectify years of substandard tuition
This is silly. One way to learn to get a high score is to take the damn thing many times and waste hundreds of hours. The other way is to have a rich life full of deep conversations, lots of reading and writing, play with various sorts of puzzles and games, schoolwork taken seriously, real extracurricular projects, etc.
About half of the people I know who got above 1500 on the SAT, including a few who aced it, never studied for it explicitly, beyond a couple of practice tests given directly by their public high schools.
I mean, all you've said is what is pretty self-evidently true, almost tautological: Be smart and you'll do well on the test. Well, obviously. If you were a genius you would not need to study very much at all for most things, SAT or not.
The point is that the best way to practice for the SAT, assuming you need practice is to take many tests.
Goal: "This exam should be about merit & hard work equally available to all."
Sal's chat with the CEO of College Board [3:57]: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/overview-sat-prep/...
God says... arent_you_clever bastard Zap gosh envy awful gluttony What_are_you_doing_dave nerd fabulous BBC eh silly_human food huh hobnob money sess_me King_Midas food why_do_I_put_up_with_this smack_some_sense_into_you I'll_get_right_on_it husband rip_off honesty act employee this_might_end_badly Oy I_didn't_see_that basket_case the food oh_oh small_talk you're_fired adultery middle_class I'm_beginning_to_wonder angel crazy who_are_you_to_judge slumin I_am_not_amused these_cans_are_defective It_grieves_me earnest vengeance wrath well_obviously slumin special_case when_hell_freezes_over atheist high_five ghastly super_computer middle_class sports I_pitty_the_fool bad smurfs hilarious arent_you_clever not_in_kansas_anymore hi harder_than_it_looks wife adjusted_for_inflation fabulous you_talkin'_to_me don't_count_on_it just_lovely it_was_nothing silly_human take_your_pick grumble reverse_engineer
* The deal with Khan Academy feels exciting and I want to see it succeed, but the vast majority of high school kids do not stick with online/self-guided test prep and those who do tend to be two standard deviations to the right anyway. I've heard from countless parents who hired us for in person tutoring after their kid didn't stay motivated with online prep. Moreover, students preparing on their own have a massive inclination to prep on sections they enjoy rather than their weakest sections.
* Video explanations inevitably fail to significantly change results because: A) learning becomes passive B) immediate feedback lacks C) individual explanations for questions tend toward "tactics" rather than "strategy" or a cohesive approach that can be applied to a wide variety of problems
* the first online test prep that will be effective will be the prep that solves A, B, and C
* Seceral people here have stated the only way to prepare for this test is to take practice tests over and over again. That's like suggesting a MLB pitcher becomes an MLB pitcher just by throwing a ball over and over again. Sure practice is essential but if you don't have the right technique or the right muscle strength then you will never significantly improve.
* While the SAT and ACT are not IQ tests, SAT/ACT scores are correlated with IQ scores. If the tests don't feel "fair" well at least they are a heck of a lot more fair than gpa (grade inflation, teacher variance, school type, etc).
* Understanding how to "beat the test" is never explained by people who say that's all it takes. Developing smart test taking strategies develops good decision making strategies so preparing for the test is arguably as valuable as a strong test score.
* Those of you who say the SAT/ACT are really easy are being douchey. If you're on y combinator you're probably smart so you don't need to show your insecurity with statements like that. It isn't unlike amazing painters or violinists telling you what they do is "really easy."
* The real interesting thing is how the SAT is changing to become a better test.
The usual thing to point out here is that the SAT correlates with IQ tests roughly as well as two IQ tests correlate with each other. Discounting the branding, what is the sense in which the SAT and ACT aren't IQ tests?
> The real interesting thing is how the SAT is changing to become a better test.
The changes to the SAT over time usually reduce its discriminating power. Often the accompanying rhetoric indicates that they're supposed to reduce its discriminating power, but it's hard to describe that as "improving" the test.