今年我们迎来了SAT新的改革考试，与之前的SAT有什么不一样，让我们一起来看看吧。
考试整体难度
参加本次SAT的智课学生普遍反映新SAT比老SAT简单，因为新SAT文章的取材和题型的设置其实是更合理的，只要做好准备，做好新老题型的思维转化就可以轻松的应对。但是，如果考生依然按照老SAT的思维去备考和解题将会遇到比较大的问题。真题整体的难度略微难于OG，这和历来北美考试真题难度普遍难于OG的规律相吻合，但是出题的思维和解题的方式是完全一致的。因此，大家主要需要参考智课教育新SAT 真题13套来备考，因为本次考试的整体难度和智课教育新SAT 真题13套基本吻合。
阅读
本次阅读考试出了一篇literature、一篇history、三篇science，这和OG中的题材比例一致。本次考试阅读分成了AB两套卷，分别对应了美国东部和西部的考生，两套卷子都考到了女权主义的话题。值得注意的是，不论是A卷还是B卷，阅读都出现了加试部分(加试的部分就是会多出来一篇阅读文章)，加试部分的判断主要是出现了OG当中没有的新题型：
the author of passage 1 thinks that _______ , the author of passage 2 thinks that _________. 这种一道题中出现双选的情况从来没有在OG中出现过，但是和OG中双篇的：P1和P2共同探讨XX ; P2支持/反对P1的某个观点; P2和P1什么关系这类题目类似，需要同学们把握两个passage作者核心论点。根据以往的考试改革之后的试卷来看，凡是出现了超出OG题型的部分就是加试部分。
从本次SAT考试试卷来看，新SAT阅读部分需要学生调整的主要是两点：1、 阅读方式 2、解题思维。因为新SAT改革更强调从整篇文章来把握作者的观点和态度，因此要求学生能够先通读文章，再去解题。因此，需要学生具备快速精读的能力。何为快速精读?在中国人阅读思维里，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读的，这就是阅读思维的调整。关于解题思维的调整，以往SAT阅读的选项是需要自己提炼和总结的，因为老SAT阅读叫做Critical Reading，而现在改为Evidence-based Reading，绝大多数的选项都很直接，并没有绕任何弯子，因此答题关键是如何找到对应的Evidence。这是新SAT，中国学生需要重点调整的部分
词汇
本次SAT考试一共出现了10929个单词，这些单词可以说对于中国学生都是“老熟人”，因为这些单词都在老SAT当中出现过，课件SAT虽然改革了但是单词选取的语料库并没有发生变化，因此在学生备考时，词汇书仍然推荐经典的Barron 3500词表。在这里给大家分享几道词汇题：
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
怎么样?是不是不难啊?
语法
这次的语法部分的考试题主要分为以下几种题型：语法题，词法题，行文逻辑题和表格题。各自所占比例分别为：43%，9%，45%和2%。就本次考试的内容来看，新SAT语法考试更加偏重于对行文逻辑和文章思路的合理性等方面的考察。对于语法点的考察量明显较老SAT减少，只有43%。关键的语法点仍然会考到，比如主谓一致、时态、介词固定搭配等，但是频率明显下降。一些词汇的用法也在考试当中出现，但是比重不大，难度也比较低。图表题作为一种新的题型出现，所占比重非常小。整体感觉对于语法的考察难度大幅度降低，但是偏重行文当中的逻辑和上下文的连接等在写作中更加实用的一些技能的考察。
数学
数学部分难度的提升感觉是比较明显的，主要是加入很多概率和统计的内容，根据很多考过SAT2的考生反映，本次SAT考试出现了部分SAT2考点的题，比如说linear regression方面的知识点。
总体而言，本次新SAT考试的整体感觉和出题思路和官方指南上的4套题是吻合的，区别是新题的难度略微有一些难，主要体现在难题数量上，因此大家在备考的时候还是多多参考智课教育新SAT 真题13套，来做到有针对性的练习，更多的关于真题的详细解读请参考智课网直播课和3月19日的智课教育新SAT发布会。
最后附上本次新SAT写作的高度还原的原文，供大家练习。
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.
