3 ms·

How do you know your ability to do that isn't rare?

Bartweiss 10y ago
Agreed - most research on SAT studying seems to suggest that this is rare. Big gains are most prevalent with either smart-but-unstudied people who get large gains from learning what to expect, or under-educated people who weren't previously taught major test components like algebra. A 300 point jump is extreme.
- tabeth 10y ago
  I don't know if a 300 point jump is extreme or not, but I'd like to point out that most people who do poorly on the SAT probably weren't getting the education they needed, which was my overall point. Put differently, I assert that all people who don't do "well" on the SAT fall into the two categories you posed.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    > I assert that all people who don't do "well" on the SAT fall into the two categories you posed. I think that's provably wrong. SAT prep courses offer a bump, but even ones with big promises don't deliver all that well. Evidence suggests 300 points is very large. The "smart but unstudied" pool I mentioned is likely small and tends to get strong gains up front - these are people who get 100+ points from the PSAT or 1-2 practice tests. (This pool is anecdotal. I knew several people in it, but I don't know of studies at the high end of the scale.) The other pool is real but not the same as you described. It largely represents people who missed core content like 'geometry' and did prep so long and extensive they learned totally new material there. There are lots of kids with low scores from bad education, agreed, but fixing that is not "studied for a week" stuff. More broadly, I'm saying that in practice "I studied for a week and gained 300 points" is an extreme outlier. Mostly people either see <100 gains from studying or only see big gains from serious, new-content education.
  - djtriptych 10y ago
    You'd also need good data for test-retest variability here. Would you expect to get the same exact score taking the test twice if you hadn't studied? How much of the point increase could be ascribed to luck?
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      I have a vague idea that many-test variability for the SAT is inside 50 points, but it's possible there's a distinct practice gain between the first test and all later ones. Also, this is all hazy unsourced memory.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    When I took it, many people got hung up on analogies. Taking a review course would help many students dramatically. Also non native speakers often struggle with the deliberately obtuse instructions. In my personal case, I went up about 50 points vs the PSAT. I had some trouble with some of the math problems, but once I worked through them a few times it was no big deal.

Agreed - most research on SAT studying seems to suggest that this is rare. Big gains are most prevalent with either smart-but-unstudied people who get large gains from learning what to expect, or under-educated people who weren't previously taught major test components like algebra. A 300 point jump is extreme.

tabeth 10y ago
I don't know if a 300 point jump is extreme or not, but I'd like to point out that most people who do poorly on the SAT probably weren't getting the education they needed, which was my overall point. Put differently, I assert that all people who don't do "well" on the SAT fall into the two categories you posed.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > I assert that all people who don't do "well" on the SAT fall into the two categories you posed. I think that's provably wrong. SAT prep courses offer a bump, but even ones with big promises don't deliver all that well. Evidence suggests 300 points is very large. The "smart but unstudied" pool I mentioned is likely small and tends to get strong gains up front - these are people who get 100+ points from the PSAT or 1-2 practice tests. (This pool is anecdotal. I knew several people in it, but I don't know of studies at the high end of the scale.) The other pool is real but not the same as you described. It largely represents people who missed core content like 'geometry' and did prep so long and extensive they learned totally new material there. There are lots of kids with low scores from bad education, agreed, but fixing that is not "studied for a week" stuff. More broadly, I'm saying that in practice "I studied for a week and gained 300 points" is an extreme outlier. Mostly people either see <100 gains from studying or only see big gains from serious, new-content education.
- djtriptych 10y ago
  You'd also need good data for test-retest variability here. Would you expect to get the same exact score taking the test twice if you hadn't studied? How much of the point increase could be ascribed to luck?
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    I have a vague idea that many-test variability for the SAT is inside 50 points, but it's possible there's a distinct practice gain between the first test and all later ones. Also, this is all hazy unsourced memory.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  When I took it, many people got hung up on analogies. Taking a review course would help many students dramatically. Also non native speakers often struggle with the deliberately obtuse instructions. In my personal case, I went up about 50 points vs the PSAT. I had some trouble with some of the math problems, but once I worked through them a few times it was no big deal.