3 ms·
This sounds nice, but I'm not holding my breath for hope that the "new" SAT will be any better. I took both the "old" SAT (the one that they discontinued aroun
by chimeracoder 13y ago
This sounds nice, but I'm not holding my breath for hope that the "new" SAT will be any better.
I took both the "old" SAT (the one that they discontinued around 2004) and the "new" SAT (the one that they're now discontinuing). I actually thought that the structure old one was better in many ways - for example, the analogies were often terribly written, but the idea of testing analogies as a reasoning tool is very powerful, and much more so than just doing passage after passage of reading comprehension.
Furthermore, this is the exact same language that they used to justify the decision to change the SAT 10 years ago. Coleman isn't saying anything new when he's criticizing the SAT today; he's just recycling the same PR language that they used a decade ago.
Of course, perhaps they really are genuine. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. But reading this gives me total deja vu from the news stories I remember reading in 2002.
- jonnathanson 13y agoAnalogies are legitimate tests of reasoning ability. As I recall, however, the analogies of the "old" old test often relied on obscure words. This turned them into de facto vocabulary tests, defeating their purpose as pure assessments of reasoning. At the very least, vocabulary became a confounding variable in assessing the specific aptitude that analogies were meant to assess. One could make a strong argument for plain-English analogies, absent the $10 words. If every test taker understood most of the words, then we could test for reasoning ability on a more normalized basis. That's not to say testing vocabulary is totally invalid. Opinions vary. But if we assume vocabulary is worth testing, then we should test it independently.
- compare 13y agoI did decently the last time I took that analogies test. For me, it was all about analyzing the sub-word component meanings (i.e. each syllable and the relations of the syllables,) not just analyzing the vocabulary at the word level. Maybe I'm just strange.
- Workaphobia 13y agoI always assumed analogies were explicitly designed as a mechanism for testing vocabulary, not reasoning. I don't understand how analogies would have any value in testing reasoning skills. I can't imagine an analogy question that isn't either obvious or subjective.
- jonnathanson 13y agoThe whole point of analogy problems is to test reasoning skills. Specifically, logical skills, inferences, categorization, and so forth. The vocabulary test nested within the analogy test is incidental. It creates a bivariate challenge (vocabulary + categorization), which is not necessarily an invalid test. It's just not a pure test of analogies, and it's also duplicative of the vocabulary portion of the test. In re the value of analogies, there are some computer scientists and philosophers who believe analogy-drawing is the irreducible core of higher cognition. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but Douglas Hofstadter has come close: http://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinking/dp/0465018475 http://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinkin...
- minor_nitwit 13y agowhy not both?
- Zhenya 13y agowhen you test for both, its tougher to get a good measure on either.