New Consensus on SAT Vocab Book?

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>I’ve been noticing that Larry Krieger’s 300 Essential Words has been quickly gaining currency among leading SAT vocab books; it is trend that honestly seems to have overtaken Direct Hits’s (Krieger’s other book) dominance.
Other books like Barron’s vocab (a more laconic list within the longer list, at least) have also been taking off and being proven to be more effective (effective as in those threads where released SATs are analyzed for words).</p>

<p>So is it time we bury Direct Hits in favor of newer books like 300 Essential Words? I’m really beginning to myself focus in on SAT vocab, and with a month left of studying, I really don’t want my option be to memorize a 2,000 word list since all else is overtly debatable. </p>

<p>What SAT vocab reign in the AAA club now?</p>

2

<p>No, DH is the best, and 300 essential words just as good. You will be doing a dis-service by using one but not the other.</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Proven effective? Kidding much? We know that some like to say, ‘the proof is in the pudding’ despite that those words mean absolutely nothing. The correct quotation is ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. One could add that ‘the proof of the pudding is in the cooking’. </p>

<p>In the case of the so-called analysis of the effectiveness of words there is no … cooking at all, except for cooking the data by selecting a list of words that are entirely subjective and mostly laughable in terms of difficulty. The contribution of the various list of words to a higher score is between nothing to very little, except for students who have a large handicap with English. </p>

<p>A legitimate preparation to the test renders the study of word lists, including DH, entirely worthless.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>I think many CC users would agree that studying vocabulary truly does help and is, very often, a necessity for the SAT. The evaluations I refer to are here:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/523820-best-vocab-list-results-recommendations.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/523820-best-vocab-list-results-recommendations.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1015690-vocabulary-book-performed-best-october-2010-sats-psats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1015690-vocabulary-book-performed-best-october-2010-sats-psats.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I can’t find the most recent one in which dark knight discusses 300 Essential’s performance, but it too was up there as the #1 performer, with DH surprisingly lower (can someone find that thread?).</p>

5

<p>The problem with this type or analysis is that the inclusion or exclusion of words is as silly as it is subjective. </p>

<p>From the first list, there is no reason to include words such as</p>

<p>duplicity, elusive, enigma, indigenous, inquisition, meticulous, plausible, pristine, pulverize, slight, unaffected, unconventional, analogy, anecdote, benign, circumspect, colloquial, decorum, discerning, eclectic, emphatic, enmity, erroneous, illicit, misnomer, ornate, paradox, penchant, permeate, prolific, rebuttal, resolute, reconciling, </p>

<p>From the second list …</p>

<p>appalled, charismatic, complicity, empathize, exonerate, nostalgic, provisional, rampant, ruthless, spare, ubiquitous, vanguard, watershed, apocryphal, cerebral, coin, curtail, disparage, elation, exemplary, foreboding, ludicrous, profound, sanguine, steadfast, severity, visceral </p>

<p>Now, run your analysis again!</p>