<p>Yeah, I figured as much. I’m getting 800 on Math and Writing, so I’m trying to focus on CR. Ironically, I’m missing more sentence completion questions than passage based ones.</p>
<p>silverturtle, you are amazing! Thank you so much. This is extremely helpful!</p>
<p>The math I’ve learnt at school does not help with the SATs at all. Ugh. How am I going to go over the 2000+ mark :/</p>
<p>
I miss mostly the sentence completions too, that’s why I took the ACT. The SAT is merely a test for people who can’t think and need to memorize large scales of information before testing including but not limited to obscure vocabulary, ridiculous loads of grammar rules, and random historical facts or stories for the essay.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t agree with you on that, cjgone. I tend to score highly on my practice SATs, and did outstandingly on my PSAT. My preparation, apart from taking those practice tests for exposure and experience, was very minimal. For me, at least, it’s a standardized method of simply applying knowledge that I’ve picked up throughout the years.</p>
<p>Of course, each person, and their methods of preparation, will be unique, so your opinion, based on personal experience, may differ from mine.</p>
<p>I don’t think I posted this, but reading this through was part of the minimal SAT prep I did. Somehow, I ended up with 800s in Reading and Writing on my very first SAT. Thank you so much! The rules posted were very helpful and definitely attributed to my success!</p>
<p>Quick question: does one synthesize an element WITH another element or does one synthesize an element AND another element?</p>
<p>I have a question about school rankings:
If it’s purely by GPA, and 20 people get all A’s, then are they all tied for rank 1?</p>
<p>^No. The number of weighted classes (A=5 grade points) would likely make a substantial difference.</p>
<p>^
Is the valedictorian based solely on GPA?</p>
<p>LOL we have like 40 rank 1s cuz its nonweighted and all the nonhonors kids have 4.0s sdfhaiwefh</p>
<p>
Again, we want to ask everyone to refrain to post questions that are not directly related to the scope or format of the guide. </p>
<p>This means that ALL specific questions should be posted in the SAT Prep forum by starting a new thread, or by joining a thread that has a similar theme. </p>
<p>Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.</p>
<p>Moderator Trinity
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t recall my time distribution, but five minutes of checking seems excessive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would do best to assume that the curves correspond to the averages indicated here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf[/url]”>http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/SAT-Released-Test-Curves.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if I knew nothing about the SAT or the ACT, the tone of this statement would suggest its invalidity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“synthesize…and” is certainly correct. I do not recall seeing “synthesize…with” in any reputable writings, and it seems technically inconsistent with the denotation of “synthesize,” which in this special transitive case means “to combine.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>GPA calculation and rank calculation vary from school to school. Some schools weight certain courses, in which case not all A’s result in equal GPA’s. Likewise, some schools determine rank based on unweighted GPA, whereas others use weighted GPA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of the time, yes. Some schools have a slightly different process, however, for calculating rank than for determining valedictorian status. My school, for example, caps the number of weighted classes that can count toward one’s “valedictorian GPA,” which serves to inflate the number of valedictorians.</p>
<p>I apologize for not tending to this thread recently, and I wish those who took the SAT today the best of luck.</p>
<p>Interest to revive the Olympic games…(next bit is just something made up) surged after German explorers discovered ancient ruins of the games in Athens, Greece. </p>
<p>Is that grammatically correct? The rest of the sentence was grammatically correct, but there is some doubt in the SAT W Jan 2011 discussion about this one error ID question. The first part “interest to revive” is under speculation. I put no error, but others are arguing that its an idiomatic error.</p>
<p>^ As far as I know, “interest to” is nonstandard unless “to” is followed by an indirect object, which is not the case there. “interest in reviving” is more standard. I would have marked it as an error.</p>