<p>All I suggested was that there is a lot of material in books like Barrons and Chungs discussing the math you need for the SAT. I thought that studying and knowing this material was an important part of test preparation.</p>
<p>Apparently, you disagree, and I started the thread with the idea of creating some discussion on this matter. I would be interested to know why you feel this should not be a major part of SAT preparation.</p>
<p>You make attacks on my tutoring ability and the books I referenced, which are irrelevant to the discussion. It seems like this doesn’t fit with some system you developed, so you are launching into ad hominem attacks to distract from the issue.</p>
<p>I did indeed disagree with the statements you made in your post. Based on your statements about this site, I also suggested to consider a method to learn the math relevant to the SAT through relevant practices. I make no apologies for maintaining that most students KNOW all the math necessary to do well on the SAT but are not familiar with the format of the questions and the approaches that reward logic and reasoning. </p>
<p>You are,and understandingly so, not familiar with I think and I have advocated for a long time. Not knowing the math foundation is surely NOT part of my “system” as many who advocate guessing and wild plugging have found out. I believe in the value of filling all the knowledge blocks, but also firmly believe in concentrating on the problems clearly covered in the test scope as this is extremely important to the standardization of the test and its scoring. Hence, my “system” is based on using official tests (and avoiding synthetic tests that are marred by errors and irrelevance) and learning or relearning the math by proactively working through the tests. Note that this step does NOT preclude to rely on source books for strategies and solutions. Regarding source books, I have described why I consider Dr. Chung’s book a horrible choice: most of his tips are not relevant to the SAT in terms of scope and presentation, the book is poorly written and lacks proper editing, and the tests offered are among the worst available. The author might understand math very well, but he does not understand the SAT limited scope. </p>
<p>Further, I DO believe in finding multiple approaches to the SAT as my numerous discussions about solutions to the Red Book and its successors demonstrate. And, contrary to your earlier assessment, my preferred solutions are based on … knowing the math and uncovering the most elegant and simple solution, and especially when such solution is not exactly taught in your typical high school. </p>
<p>At this stage, debating semantics is pointless. Again, I believe in helping others through concrete examples. I have done that though a large number of posts and for a long time, and others have done exactly the same here. </p>
<p>The best way to judge what you call expertise is through an evaluation of the contributions posted here. Rest assured that there will plenty of questions posed here, and often repetitively. Again, I would be happy to discuss your approaches and methods to answer the relevant questions posted by the students. </p>
<p>Better mousetraps can only benefit this forum! Do not hesitate to contribute your knowledge! </p>
<p>Sorry I didn’t understand this was the Xiggi forum and anything that did not conform to Xiggi’s system would be attacked.</p>
<p>I didn’t suggest doing problems in the books I mentioned. I suggested studying the summaries of SAT math. Whether I am a bad tutor or those are not the best books is irrelevant.</p>
<p>I have not yet tutored a student who knew all the math in the math sections in Barrons. I do emphasize knowing the SAT math more with lower scoring students.</p>
<p>I understand that most high school students are used to being spoon fed, and do not have the skills to study material on their own, but they do know how to do practice tests.</p>
<p>^You have mentioned your approach several times now. You’ve been presented with some in-depth critiques. Maybe a way to move this forward productively would be for you to provide some more in-depth support/rationale for your approach.</p>
<p>By the way, there have been plenty of people who have disagreed with xiggi and presented well thought out arguments that led to respectful back and forths. This is nobody’s forum but many people here have strong opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours. The more they’re supported, the more respect they’ll receive.</p>
<p>Also, people are more happy to help if you put in a little work and show a certain level of courtesy by reading through some prior posts about your questions.</p>
<p>The thread whereby the guy raised his SAT score by 790 used:
Math - Dr. Chungs.
CR - Direct Hits vocab 1 and 2 (Use different approach for reading comp questions)
Write - Ultimate Guide to Grammar by Erica Meltzer</p>
<p>Say what? Enough of this non-sense! Let us not reinventing the history. You have come here to question what some of us have discussed for several years. This has never been a closed forum. </p>
<p>This the second or third thread with a similar pattern. People who have been here a long time do not enjoy having to respond to false allegations. Nor having to defend their positions and repeatedly clear up gross mischaracterization of their methods by new members with an obvious agenda. </p>
<p>I don’t have an agenda. I don’t know much about your methods to mischaracterize them. I did not intend this thread to be about your approach. </p>
<p>You attacked me, my tutoring methods, and the books I suggested for not conforming to your method.</p>
<p>My thread was about studying the SAT math. I gather you object to that. If a student knows all the math on the SAT, then obviously she/he does not have to study it.</p>
<p>You state that I have come here to question what some of you have discussed for year and it has never been a closed forum. This sounds pretty closed to me that should dare question some orthodoxy.</p>
<p>I am not sure why my comments are so controversial, and I am not really clear on what you and the other poster object to other than you view studying SAT math as questioning some sort of accepted dogma.</p>
<p>You just mischaracterized my positions again. I made the effort to discuss them in a previous post. Please have the courtesy to read the post with closer attention. Of course, I would not expect you to read the thousands of posts that clearly indicate that I believe in … learning the relevant math. </p>
<p>Is this a case of chicken and egg? I recommend learning the math concepts in interactive sessions based on official tests. Do you recommend studying the concepts presented in Barron’s and Chung prior to take the practice tests? I recommend to use the source books to verify incorrect when the concept seems murky. Or …post the question here! </p>
<p>Based on the previous threads, it seems that the major disagreement is based on spending time on questions that are usually well beyond the scope of the official tests. In simple words, it is about learning concepts that might never show up on a given Saturday on the regular SAT.</p>
<p>Perhaps our disagreement stems from our differences in actually tracking what has showed up on the test in the past 15 years. </p>
<p>If this were an open forum, you would not be accusing me of questioning? You would be able to answer my questions rather than objecting to my questioning and engaging in every sort of ad hominem attack.</p>
<p>I gather that everyone on the forum has agreed on certain things, including the Xiggi’s method, and if someone from outside expresses heretical views, it needs to be suppressed.</p>
<p>I would presume that the books include sections on SAT math because some people find them useful. I didn’t realize my position was so controversial. </p>
<p>I am not posting any more on this. I had trouble with people on other forums who were not totally sane. I don’t want to get into any more problems like that. </p>
<p>I recant it is wrong to study math in prep books! Xiggi’s method is the only way!</p>
<p>OK, I realize I was wrong in suggesting the use of heretical prep books. I have been reading more forum posts and will devote myself to the study of the Xiggi method. I will post further on this when I have found new ways to explain and expound upon Xiggi’s teachings.</p>
<p>My last post was meant to be conciliatory. Perhaps I miss the finer points of the sarcastic responses, but it seems clear that I failed. Too bad! </p>
<p>Sarcasm? I am studying the Xiggi guide and will respond in a few weeks with a version of my approach to studying the SAT math which is consistent with Xiggism.</p>
<p>“My approach to tutoring is to make sure the student knows the math covered on the test. Since there is a small amount of math, there is more reason to focus on it.”</p>
<p>This seems to, essentially, be your argument and it doesn’t make sense. If there is a small amount of math content covered on the test in terms of breadth, then there’s no reason to allot more focus to the content itself. Especially when you take into account the fact that most students, by the time of taking the SAT, have learned all of the content in their classes. Because students, for the most part, already have experience with the material, most students would benefit more from familiarizing themselves with the questions.</p>
<p>If the student knows all the material in the math review in the books I mentioned, then of course there is not need to work on it, but students like that are usually scoring close to 800.</p>
<p>Because there is a small amount of material, it doesn’t take that much time, so it makes sense to work on it.</p>
<p>If a student is scoring 500, then I would spend more time on the math. However, a typical student scoring 650 does not know the answer to all of these. What is the ratio of slopes of perpendicular lines? Is you went there at 60 mph and back at 40 mph, what is your average speed for the trip? If Bob takes 2 hours to do a job and Steve takes 3 hours to do a job, how long does it take them to do the job working together? I would make sure a student knows how to do these and similar problems.</p>
<p>There is nothing controversial about what you are suggesting. Though participants here sometimes seem not to realize, there are plenty of students who are not near 800. And those students often have gaps. Silly things…remainders…is 1 prime?..is 2? Is zero even? What’s the rule about triangle lengths? These gaps have to be discovered and filled. A skilled tutor could do that with any number of books (or no books at all).</p>
<p>One approach to finding your gaps is to take lots of real tests and then go back and thoroughly review your wrong answers. The idea is that if you do enough of them, you will find all of your gaps and also get a lot of practice with how the SAT actually tests the material. This method certainly works. It has worked for thousands of students before and will continue to work. But is it the most efficient use of time?</p>
<p>Another approach is to go over all of the tested concepts first. Sattut is right: there are not that many of them. There are plenty of books for doing that as well, some more concise than others (hint, hint). Stronger students can review all of these ideas quickly and soon move on to taking real tests, not needing to do as many because they are only practicing and “calibrating”, not gap-finding (though some gaps will still be discovered this way). </p>
<p>But one way to waste time is to fill gaps that are not real – material that is not tested. (Apparently, this is not just a math issue – Oxford commas, anyone? ) And there are definitely books and fake tests out there that will lead to this kind of wasted time. And the fake tests cause you to mis-calibrate as well.</p>
<p>So I think overall, I agree with Sattut’s approach but not his book selection! Also, I don’t recall a real SAT problem about " Bob takes 2 hours to do a job and Steve takes 3 hours…" but maybe I missed it.</p>