While I'm one who does very well on these kinds of tests, they are not a very good means of determining vocabulary. None of us use obscure words. Most of us don't ever run across them in our real lives. Real words in real situations are what matter.

But we are no longer intent on creating well-read, well-rounded, thinking generations, are we?

NO, we just need to produce rank upon rank of corporate clones who are rigid and blind to meaning and purpose of language, the struggles of history, the rigors of the scientific method, and the flash of genius.

And while I recognize words that I'd never ever be using , and I also use words that other people sometimes look confused at, I think all too often the SAT vocabulary words are beyond obscure and are often used in ways that are confusing.

There's a way to test for a strong vocabulary without going to a ridiculous point.

Sort of like the National Spelling Bee. The kids who win those usually spend hours and hours every day memorizing words even too obscure for the SAT people, and while it's nice they can spell words they will never again encounter, it's not an entirely useful skill.


Somehow getting people interested in reading regularly would be vastly more effective than memorizing lists of words.

My 11th grade English teacher spent part of the class the whole year on obscure words prepping us for the SATs. She was a wonderful teacher. As a result I did great on that part of the test and I'm good at crossword puzzles.
Maybe it's not something you need in "real life" but I enjoy knowing and using some obscure words, and if I run across a new one I always look it up.

what a great idea, let's find another reason to diminish vocabulary, but then perhaps in our texting world of 140 character messages we don't need more than LOL, WTF and OMG?

"Write an essay in 140 characters or less that compares and contrasts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire with that of the British Empire."

Or as it may be in that not-too-distant future vernacular:

"Wrt n essy n 140 char or lss tht cmprs & cntrsts t rse & fll of t Rmn Mpr w/ tht of t Brtsh Mpr:

Csr ws klld. T 2nd Trmvt frm. Octvn dftd Mark Tony. ACsr tk pwr. Thngs cllpsd ltr. etc. LOL tl;dnr LOL gtg LOL

OMG! OMG! ROFLMAO!

Just because a kid is poor, shouldn't mean s/he's never encountered "obscure" vocabulary. Libraries are free; and public education and public support for the poor should be sufficient for poor kids to have had access to and an interest in the books that contain "obscure" words.

This is the SAT having to try to compensate for the last several decades of cutting programs to help the poor amid growing poverty due to "trickle down" economic policies and the like.

Like penitence, because we are no longer sorry for anything (Lookin' at YOU, Wall Street!)
Or foist, because now anything goes (Hey, General Mills, hitting "like" means no mediation for faulty products?)
Or foreseen (As in, no one could have foreseen, right, Condi?)
Or gallant (Good lord, who wants to even TRY it now?)
Or rigmarole (I mean, the advertising industry has to make a LIVING, right?)

Yeah, all pretty useless in our current culture. But MUST have

Twerking (Just look it up and you'll immediately feel worse.)
Gawjus (Yes, that OLD word "gorgeous" is just too cumbersome, isn't it?)
Flipers (Diapers worn by a flight crew when they have no access to a bathroom, but don't worry, they fly well even when stinking)
Selfie (Why YES, it IS all about ME!)

Well, gotta bounce! SAT is all that and a bag of chips, right? I don't know why I'm bugg'n, cause a little clownin never made anyone go postal! (Gratuitous 90's flashback)