I was reading an interesting article on the ideas behind the new SAT - I don't have a link to it though, sorry. What got me a little upset was that the SAT has changed a lot more than any of us realized. The SAT used to be a test of thinking skills and concepts. Analogies (my favorite part of the test) do not test vocabulary as much as your ability to think in comparisons. And the math portion was the same way.
But the the people behind the new SAT have decided that they will, single-handedly, improve and revolutionize America's high-school curriculum by demanding that schools teach what is on the SAT. And what is on the new SAT? Well, the biggest thing is a writing section, something I have a problem with because grading writing is not as easy as a multiple choice question. What it means for high-schools is that they now have to actually teach writing in the classrooms. Unfortunately, it means they will teach to the test in many cases - teaching students to write to formula rather than to subject or content. The new SAT has also, sadly, done away with analogies and added questions which test the student's ability to spot grammatical errors and correct them.
The Math section has changed drastically too. I took the diagnostic for this new job, and while I did as well as I should have on the writing and verbal portion, I was floored by the math. For one thing, they have changed the wording so that if you haven't been in a math class in the last 20 years, you won't even recognize the jargon they are using in the question. And for another thing, they have added more higher algebra.
The president of the College Board (the people who write the SAT) has said he wants to turn our high-schools around by forcing them to teach writing and higher math. He seems to feel that this will be beneficial to America's students. But to me it just sounds like another way of forcing our schools to "teach to the test," if they will care enough to even bother. The big city schools where few of the students even consider college won't see the need to change, and really, aren't they the ones that need to change the most?
But, hope is out there. I will be part of a new program run by The Princeton Review to put college test prep teachers into our public schools. I think this is a splendid idea. I will be teaching to the test, so that the regular teachers don't have to. I have to say, I wonder how TPR is making money from this, and maybe they aren't, but I'll find out later. Training starts next Monday, and I'm psyched.
Games of Command
by Linnea Sinclair
Up 'til now, I have avoided any romances labeled "Science Fiction" because frankly, they usually aren't. They tend to be written by women who's only experience of SF comes from the Star Wars movies, and are pretty weak in the SF area.
So when I saw "Games of Command," I thought at first that it was actually SF. It has a very SF-looking cover, until you realize it's a beautiful woman and a hunky man. And the word "Romance" on the spine is a dead giveaway. I read the blurb and decided to give it a chance.
I was not disappointed. Linnea Sinclair knows her space opera, and she knows her romances, and she has blended them well. It has enough of each to keep it exciting. There are actually two romances, but the author strings us along on the really intriguing one between a command officer of the fleet with a shady past, and a cyber-engineered admiral who was once her enemy. It has all the right earmarks of a classic romance.
Now, Ms. Sinclair is no Catherine Asaro, but Asaro's books are still labeled "Science Fiction," so her novels are very heavy on the SF side while still being romances. I guess her publishers figure as long as she stays away from the romance formula, she can still write whatever she wants (romance formula: boy meets girl, girl hates boy, girl falls in love, conflict keeps them apart, they finally get together and live happily ever after). So, I recommend "Games of Command" only to fans of Science Fiction who are also fans of Romance novels.