Mallard Fillmore, from yesterday:
From what little I've read about the changes, there are some positive ones as well. Still, the move to make the test more aligned with what students are actually learning, and to what they will likely encounter in general life, is part of a disturbing trend. To my mind, the Scholastic Aptitude Test is only useful if it measures what is not taught in school, nor in "test-prep" courses. Otherwise, it's just another achievement test. A mastery of so-called arcane vocabulary is an indicator of the extent and quality of a student's outside reading. Success in the analogy section, which to my chagrin was dropped long ago, was an indicator of a certain kind of mental agility. A widely-read, mentally agile person is more likely to be successful in college, hence the putative value of the test.
Granted, an exam based so strongly on the English language puts foreign students, and those from difficult backgrounds, at a disadvantage, but that's only an argument for why the SAT should be but one part of many criteria for college acceptance, not for altering the test itself.
Except for a short lesson in proper test-taking strategies and the specific structure of the exam, I'm of the opinion that test-prep courses simply undermine the purpose of the test. Sorry for pulling the "old" card, but in my day we went into the SAT cold, knowing that the best preparation was years of good habits. In fact, we were told that it was impossible to study for such an exam! Easier all around....
