今年我們迎來了SAT新的改革考試，與之前的SAT有什麼不一樣，讓我們一起來看看吧。
考試整體難度
參加本次SAT的智課學生普遍反映新SAT比老SAT簡單，因爲新SAT文章的取材和題型的設定其實是更合理的，只要做好準備，做好新老題型的思維轉化就可以輕鬆的應對。但是，如果考生依然按照老SAT的思維去備考和解題將會遇到比較大的問題。真題整體的難度略微難於OG，這和歷來北美考試真題難度普遍難於OG的規律相吻合，但是出題的思維和解題的方式是完全一致的。因此，大家主要需要參考智課教育新SAT 真題13套來備考，因爲本次考試的整體難度和智課教育新SAT 真題13套基本吻合。
閱讀
本次閱讀考試出了一篇literature、一篇history、三篇science，這和OG中的題材比例一致。本次考試閱讀分成了AB兩套卷，分別對應了美國東部和西部的考生，兩套卷子都考到了女權主義的話題。值得注意的是，不論是A卷還是B卷，閱讀都出現了加試部分(加試的部分就是會多出來一篇閱讀文章)，加試部分的判斷主要是出現了OG當中沒有的新題型：
the author of passage 1 thinks that _______ , the author of passage 2 thinks that _________. 這種一道題中出現雙選的情況從來沒有在OG中出現過，但是和OG中雙篇的：P1和P2共同探討XX ; P2支援/反對P1的某個觀點; P2和P1什麼關係這類題目類似，需要同學們把握兩個passage作者核心論點。根據以往的考試改革之後的試卷來看，凡是出現了超出OG題型的部分就是加試部分。
從本次SAT考試試卷來看，新SAT閱讀部分需要學生調整的主要是兩點：1、 閱讀方式 2、解題思維。因爲新SAT改革更強調從整篇文章來把握作者的觀點和態度，因此要求學生能夠先通讀文章，再去解題。因此，需要學生具備快速精讀的能力。何爲快速精讀?在中國人閱讀思維裏，快速和精度是相矛盾的，但是英文的文章是可以做到快速精讀的，這就是閱讀思維的調整。關於解題思維的調整，以往SAT閱讀的選項是需要自己提煉和總結的，因爲老SAT閱讀叫做Critical Reading，而現在改爲Evidence-based Reading，絕大多數的選項都很直接，並沒有繞任何彎子，因此答題關鍵是如何找到對應的Evidence。這是新SAT，中國學生需要重點調整的部分
詞彙
本次SAT考試一共出現了10929個單詞，這些單詞可以說對於中國學生都是“老熟人”，因爲這些單詞都在老SAT當中出現過，課件SAT雖然改革了但是單詞選取的語料庫並沒有發生變化，因此在學生備考時，詞彙書仍然推薦經典的Barron 3500詞表。在這裏給大家分享幾道詞彙題：
As used in line 42, “open” most nearly means
A) porous.
B) accessible.
C) uncovered.
D) vacant.
As used in line 66,”common” most nearly means
A) routine
B) shared
C) standard
D) causal
怎麼樣?是不是不難啊?
語法
這次的語法部分的考試題主要分爲以下幾種題型：語法題，詞法題，行文邏輯題和表格題。各自所佔比例分別爲：43%，9%，45%和2%。就本次考試的內容來看，新SAT語法考試更加偏重於對行文邏輯和文章思路的合理性等方面的考察。對於語法點的考察量明顯較老SAT減少，只有43%。關鍵的語法點仍然會考到，比如主謂一致、時態、介詞固定搭配等，但是頻率明顯下降。一些詞彙的用法也在考試當中出現，但是比重不大，難度也比較低。圖表題作爲一種新的題型出現，所佔比重非常小。整體感覺對於語法的考察難度大幅度降低，但是偏重行文當中的邏輯和上下文的連接等在寫作中更加實用的一些技能的考察。
數學
數學部分難度的提升感覺是比較明顯的，主要是加入很多概率和統計的內容，根據很多考過SAT2的考生反映，本次SAT考試出現了部分SAT2考點的題，比如說linear regression方面的知識點。
總體而言，本次新SAT考試的整體感覺和出題思路和官方指南上的4套題是吻合的，區別是新題的難度略微有一些難，主要體現在難題數量上，因此大家在備考的時候還是多多參考智課教育新SAT 真題13套，來做到有針對性的練習，更多的關於真題的詳細解讀請參考智課網直播課和3月19日的智課教育新SAT發佈會。
最後附上本次新SAT寫作的高度還原的原文，供大家練習。
Essay (Optional)
50 MINUTES
Turn to Section 3 of your answer sheet to answer the question in this section.
DIRECTIONS
This essay is optional. It is a chance for you to demonstrate how well you can understand and analyze a written passage. Your essay should show that you have carefully read the passage and should be a concisely written analysis that is both logical and clear.
You must write your entire essay on the lines in your answer booklet. No additional paper will be provided aside from the Planning Page inside your answer booklet. You will be able to write your entire essay in the space provided if you make use of every line, keep tight margins, and write at a suitable size. Don’t forget to keep your handwriting legible for the readers evaluating your essay.
You will have 50 minutes to read the passage in this booklet and to write an essay in response to the prompt provided at the end of the passage.
REMINDERS
l What you write in this booklet will not be evaluated. Write your essay in the answer booklet only.
l Essays that are off-topic will not be evaluated.
Adapted from E.J. Dionne Jr., “A Call for National Service” 2013 by the Washington Post Originally published July 3rd, 2013
Here is the sentence in the Declaration of Independence we always remember: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And here is the sentence we often forget: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.”
This, the very last sentence of the document, is what makes the better-remembered sentence possible. One speaks of our rights. The other addresses our obligations. The freedoms we cherish are self-evident but not self-executing. The Founders pledge something “to each other,” the commonly overlooked clause in the Declaration’s final pronouncement.
We find ourselves, 237 years after the Founders declared us a new nation, in a season of discontent, even surliness, about the experiment they launched. We are sharply divided over the very meaning of our founding documents, and we are more likely to invoke the word “we” in the context of “us versus them” than in the more capacious sense that includes every single American.
There are no quick fixes to our sense of disconnection, but there may be a way to restore our sense of what we owe each other across the lines of class, race, background — and, yes, politics and ideology.
Last week, the Aspen Institute gathered a politically diverse group of Americans under the banner of the “Franklin Project,” named after Ben, to declare a commitment to offering every American between the ages of 18 and 28 a chance to give a year of service to the country. The opportunities would include service in our armed forces but also time spent educating our fellow citizens, bringing them health care and preventive services, working with the least advantaged among us, and conserving our environment.
Last week, the Aspen Institute gathered a politically diverse group of Americans under the banner of the “Franklin Project,” named after Ben, to declare a commitment to offering every American between the ages of 18 and 28 a chance to give a year of service to the country. The opportunities would include service in our armed forces but also time spent educating our fellow citizens, bringing them health care and preventive services, working with the least advantaged among us, and conserving our environment.
Service would not be compulsory, but it would be an expectation. And it just might become part of who we are.
The call for universal, voluntary service is being championed by retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in league with two of the country’s foremost advocates of the cause, John Bridgeland, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and Alan Khazei, co-founder of City Year, one of the nation’s most formidable volunteer groups. The trio testifies to the non-ideological and nonpartisan nature of this cause, as did a column last week endorsing the idea from Michael Gerson, my conservative Post colleague.
“We’ve a remarkable opportunity now,” McChrystal says, “to move with the American people away from an easy citizenship that does not ask something from every American yet asks a lot from a tiny few.” We do, indeed, owe something to our country, and we owe an enormous debt to those who have done tour after tour in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McChrystal sees universal service as transformative. “It will change how we think about America and how we think about ourselves,” he says. And as a former leader of an all-volunteer Army, he scoffs at the idea that giving young Americans a stipend while they serve amounts to “paid volunteerism,” the phrase typically invoked by critics of service programs. “If you try to rely on unpaid volunteerism,” he said, “then you limit the people who can do it. . . . I’d like the people from Scarsdale to be paid the same as the people from East L.A.”
There are real challenges here. Creating the estimated 1 million service slots required to make the prospect of service truly universal will take money, from government and private philanthropy. Service, as McChrystal says, cannot just be a nice thing that well-off kids do when they get out of college. It has to draw in the least advantaged young Americans. In the process, it could open new avenues for social mobility, something the military has done for so many in the past.
Who knows whether the universal expectation of service would change the country as much as McChrystal hopes. But we have precious few institutions reminding us to join the Founders in pledging something to each other. We could begin by debating this proposal in a way that frees us from the poisonous assumption that even an idea involving service to others must be part of some hidden political agenda. The agenda here is entirely open. It’s based on the belief that certain unalienable rights entail certain unavoidable responsibilities.