| > most people would probably not benefit much from having that additional content added into the high school course It would be great if we could switch from content to teaching actual mathematical reasoning. You can read a famous essay called "Lockhart's Lament" for more about this subject. But that's not something that's happening right now either in classrooms or on the standardized tests. My point is that you have to teach something in high school, and it doesn't feel like the new SAT tests anywhere near four years' worth of content. > linear equations; complex equations or functions; and ratios, percentages and proportional reasoning "Linear equations" are a topic that can easily be taught in a month or less. "Complex equations or functions" is unclear, but I assume this means quadratic equations or maybe basic trigonometry -- probably a semester's worth or less. "Ratios, percentages and proportional reasoning" is really middle school level math -- or even elementary school level. It doesn't belong in a high school curriculum, except as review or remedial material. So all of this content consumes less than a year of high school. I agree that maybe four years of intensive math coursework may be the wrong bar to set for the SAT, but is it setting the bar too high to expect college-bound seniors to know more than a single year worth of math content? For that matter, only the best students should be expected to get a high score on the SAT; otherwise, the SAT score becomes meaningless. So I should re-phrase the question: Is it setting the bar too high to expect the best math students among college-bound seniors to know more than a single year worth of math content? |