Embedded Files
Your Pathway to College in AI Era
6/16/2026
If you took any seating in the SAT test between August 2025 and June 2026, you must have participated a collective psychological meltdown. Across the globe, the transition to the adaptive Digital SAT has ushered in a year of unprecedented student distress.
Behind the panic lies a story of systemic escalation. As students became smarter and prep tools became more sophisticated, College Board quietly re-engineered its adaptive engine. The result? A grueling obstacle course of linguistic traps, "Desmos-proof" mathematics, and unforgiving scoring scales that redefined the testing landscape.
View interactive illustration of SAT test & score trends on frankfeng.me
1. The Verbal Section: Information Overload vs. Semantic Traps
In the Verbal (Reading & Writing) section, the College Board abandoned simple reading comprehension in favor of two distinct, stress-inducing tactics.
For US Domestic test-takers, the primary weapon was information volume. Students faced dense, scientific data-tracking passages, culminating in the notorious "ISS Fungi" passage of May and June 2026. These multi-paragraph biology blocks tracking mutated space fungi (Cladosporium sphaerospermum) triggered severe time-management crises, forcing many to guess on the final questions of Module 2.
For International test-takers, the challenge was semantic shifting. Instead of testing rare vocabulary, the exam weaponized secondary definitions of common words. Students were tripped up by words like "modesty" (used to mean behavioral restraint rather than humility) and "opaque" (used to describe unintelligible prose rather than physical clarity). For non-native English speakers, it was a brutal test of linguistic nuance.
2. The Math Section: Bypassing the Graphing Calculator
When the Digital SAT debuted, the built-in Desmos graphing calculator was hailed as a cheat code. Over the past year, however, College Board systematically "Desmos-proofed" Math Module 2. To stop students from simply plotting equations to find answers, the test makers deployed two brilliant, frustrating traps:
Abstract Constants: Systems of equations were loaded with variable parameters, such as solving for (x-k)^2 = (x-5a)(x-k), rendering Desmos sliders useless.
Time-Wasting Calculations: June 2026 featured high-degree polynomial expressions with no real roots, such as 72x^4 + 213x^2 + 105 = 0. Because the graph never touched the x-axis, students who relied entirely on visual graphing shortcuts panicked, forced to resort to grueling manual grouping and factoring by hand.
3. The Equating Trap: The Volatile Scoring Curves
Perhaps the greatest source of student outrage was the "Equating Trap," which only relexed shortly in the December 2025 .
Because the adaptive engine customizes test forms, students who received slightly easier verbal or math modules faced a terrifying reality: the grading scale became mercilessly strict. Forums were flooded with reports of students who missed just one or two questions seeing their scores plummet by 40 to 50 points. This extreme curve pressure turned the exam into a game of absolute, error-free precision.
The Verdict for the Classes of 2027&2028
The 2025–26 testing cycle made one thing clear: the era of memorizing formulas and vocabulary lists is officially over. To conquer the Digital SAT, students must build deep conceptual agility, master manual algebraic fundamentals, and learn to read scientific prose with absolute precision.
The Digital SAT is no longer just a test of what you know. It is a high-speed game of strategic endurance. Your only way out of this ever-evoluting test-and-score's game is the Unified Models.
A systematic solution of multiple choice questions, Unified Models can work through choice analysis without referrencing any prompt information and reach the correct answer instantly. The Models, based on the human instincts Five Values or 5Vs, is not only learnable but also innate to a student. It requires learners the least English language and scienctific subjects knowledge, thus is ready for almost any one who is look for a 1500s in his/her SAT.
11/3/2023
In the ever-evolving landscape of college admissions, "test-optional" has emerged as an agent of change and transformation. As American higher Education navigates the post-affirmative action era, colleges are fervently redefining their approaches to admissions. This shift towards test-optional policies has opened a new and exciting chapter in the pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusivity within higher education. The traditional emphasis on standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, is giving way to a broader perspective that considers a student's holistic merits, extracurricular activities, and personal essays. These dynamic trends in college applications not only challenge the status quo but also reflect the ongoing quest for a more equitable and accessible educational landscape for all aspiring students.
The Rise of Test-Optional Policies:
In the realm of college admissions, the term "test-optional" has been gaining significant traction, potentially staying mainstream perpetually. As the U.S. navigates the post-affirmative action landscape, colleges and universities are adopting a range of strategies to create more inclusive and equitable admission processes. This shift towards test-optional policies has opened up a new chapter in the pursuit of diversity, sparking discussions and revealing intriguing trends in college applications.
The adoption of test-optional policies by colleges and universities across the United States has been a remarkable development since 2018 when University of Chicago, a notoriously academic heavyweight, first adopted the policy. Meeting the global pandemic, this shift has been largely driven by a desire to promote fairness and access in higher education. These policies acknowledge that standardized tests like the SAT and ACT can perpetuate socio-economic and racial disparities in admissions. As colleges strive to create a level playing field for all applicants, test-optional policies are a major step in the right direction. In 2023-24 application cycle, 1900 US colleges and universities deploy the measure, more than tripling the count in the beginning of 2020-21 cycle.
A Broader Definition of Merit:
Test-optional policies reflect a broader and more nuanced understanding of what constitutes merit in the college admissions process. Institutions are increasingly looking beyond test scores, recognizing the importance of assessing applicants holistically. This means that extracurricular activities, personal essays, and recommendation letters play a more significant role in evaluating a student's potential.
The shift towards a more holistic evaluation of applicants represents a fundamental change in how colleges perceive merit. It's not just about test scores anymore; it's about the overall qualities and experiences that a student brings to the table. This shift emphasizes the importance of a well-rounded education and personal development, rather than just a focus on one’s grades, scores, and awards. Colleges of Brown and Tufts alike are accepting application videos from their students, while a growing number of others partner with third parties including Kira Talent and InitialView. BigFuture, the college guide portal at the duopoly of the standardized test, College Board, is too rumored to launch its own college video recording platform. In addition, personal essays and recommendation letters are also refilling the evaluation spaces giving up by scores and grades.
The Impact on Underrepresented Communities:
Test-optional policies have the potential to level the playing field for underrepresented minority groups. Students who may not have access to expensive test preparation resources or who have been historically disadvantaged by standardized tests now have a more equitable opportunity to be admitted based on their merits, rather than their test scores.
This shift is particularly significant in addressing disparities in higher education. Historically, underrepresented communities have faced barriers in accessing and succeeding in college. Test-optional policies are a crucial step in breaking down these barriers and providing equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their background. Since the mid-year Supreme Court’s ruling on SFFA vs Harvard and SFFA vs UNC, affirmative action admission is considered to have retired from the front desks of the elite colleges. In their immediate reaction to the ruling, colleges updated and required a supplemental essay prompt on diversity, equality and inclusion topics, despite that the Common Application prompts has already included such a topic in the seven prompts. Harvard, for instance, has implemented a new required diversity prompt for 2023-24 cycle. In addition to QuestBridge that attracts nearly 20,000 application from underrepresented students, Common App through its newly launched Direct Admission program to offer admissions to 200,000 underrepresented students by 70 American colleges.
The Role of Socio-Economic Background:
While the move to test-optional policies is a step towards inclusivity, the socio-economic background of applicants still plays a significant role. Some students can afford test preparation courses and hire private admissions consultants, giving them an advantage. This highlights the need for ongoing efforts to address economic disparities in education.
The socio-economic background of applicants remains a complex issue to address. While test-optional policies help reduce one dimension of inequality, the broader issues related to economic disparities in education persist. Colleges and policymakers need to work collaboratively to provide financial aid, resources, and support systems that ensure all students have a fair shot at higher education. Along this growing trend, dozens of colleges have joint Stanford, Princeton, and other endowment-rich elite institutions to instituting their own no-loan policies, largely limited to domestic candidates though. Currently. all but one top-20 universities required no debt to enroll. The average of financial aid for Yalies and Brownies who benefit from it amounts $58,244 and 47,590, respectively.
The Challenge of Assessing Potential:
One emerging trend is the challenge of assessing a student's potential without the anchor of standardized test scores. Admissions officers are tasked with a more subjective evaluation process, which can be both rewarding and daunting. This shift underscores the importance of investing in professional development for admissions teams and utilizing data analytics to predict student success accurately.
The shift towards holistic assessment is not without its challenges. Admissions officers now have the responsibility of evaluating applicants in a more nuanced and subjective manner. This requires a greater understanding of the factors that contribute to student success and the development of tools and strategies to ensure accurate assessments. Colleges are investing in training and data analytics to support these efforts and make the transition as smooth as possible. Enrollment Management, an industry that have provided student search databases since 1980s, has been innovating itself and become dozens of providers in lieu of Royall, Encoura, and Turnitin that not only providing but also analyzing student databases composed of stats, essays, and activities among social networks.
Ongoing Debates over Legacy Admissions:
The SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action has also exacerbated debates about legacy admissions. Some critics argue that colleges should move beyond legacy admissions to create a more level playing field for all applicants. The spotlight on legacy admissions aligns with the broader discussions about fairness and equity in college admissions.
The debate over legacy admissions has gained momentum in the context of post-affirmative action and post-pandemic admissions. Critics argue that legacy admissions perpetuate privilege and create an uneven playing field for other applicants. This discussion serves as a reminder that addressing inequality in college admissions is a multi-faceted challenge that requires reevaluating long-standing practices. Adding to a 2021 Stanford study unearthed the admission disparity among student application essays due to household income, a 2023 Harvard-Brown research covering 33 top private and public universities and 5 million students in 2010-2015 application cycles further exposed the privilege of legacy students, dubbing legacy factor as a college qualifier of its own. It is not to understate that parents legacy has started entering its way out of the admission domain.
A Focus on Inclusive Practices:
Many colleges are actively implementing practices that encourage diversity and inclusion. These include targeted outreach to underrepresented communities, expanding financial aid offerings, and providing support systems to ensure the success of students from diverse backgrounds.
Colleges are not stopping at test-optional policies; they are actively pursuing inclusive practices to create a diverse and welcoming campus environment. Initiatives like outreach programs, increased financial aid, and support systems are essential components of these efforts. These institutions are making a conscious commitment to creating an environment where students from all backgrounds can thrive. Since 2020, institutions including University of California have been either opening dedicated positions on diversity admissions or hiring additional admission staff of certain underrepresented demographics. MIT, one that has least concerned the typical inequality measures like SAT and ACT scores, is now employing apparently 40% counselors and directors inside its undergraduate admission office. University of Pennsylvania uses its alumni networks in outreaching students of ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+.
A Global Perspective:
Test-optional policies have led to a more inclusive environment for international students. Colleges are increasingly looking beyond standardized testing, recognizing the value of diverse international perspectives in the student body.
The impact of test-optional policies extends beyond domestic students. International students have also benefited from this shift, as colleges are now placing greater emphasis on a diverse and global student body. By moving away from an exclusive focus on standardized testing, colleges are inviting students from all over the world to contribute their unique perspectives to the academic community. China, where study abroad students were interrupted the most due to its pandemic travel limitations, has recovered to its pre-pandemic levels of common applications and is expected to rise further in 2023-24 cycle. India, one of countries leading the tolls on covid-19, has surpassed China and led the growths among all countries that are sending international students to the US.
The Future of Standardized Testing:
As colleges continue to embrace test-optional policies, questions arise about the future of standardized testing. Some institutions are considering alternatives, such as evaluating non-cognitive skills, to ensure a more comprehensive assessment of applicants.
The future of standardized testing is uncertain as colleges increasingly move away from it. Some institutions are exploring alternative methods for evaluating applicants, such as assessing non-cognitive skills like resilience, adaptability, and creativity. These changes reflect a broader shift towards a more comprehensive approach to evaluating an applicant's potential. In March 2023, College Board introduced its increasingly controversial college entry exam in a new digital format stressing the user experiences of the test. Even though the average SAT scores has dropped by almost 100 points, this update of user interface is generally welcomed by the students and educators who traditionally criticized the test on testing equality. Despite fact that academic rigorous colleges such as MIT and Georgia Tech has reinstituted their test requirements, test optional policy is and will be the mainstream among US colleges beyond the years.
Rising Trend of Chat-GPT in Essays
Powered by the hype around the launch of Chat-GPT, there has been a rising trend in the world of college applications is the increasing use of AI-powered chatbots like Chat-GPT and Grammarly to assist applicants in drafting their application essays. News sources report that 1 out of 10 college applicants are using Chat-GPT in writing their essays. The penetration of Grammarly in application essays are estimated at 30+%. The technologies have strengths, they also come with significant drawbacks.
On the positive side, AIs can provide instant assistance to applicants, particularly those who may struggle with writing or articulating their thoughts. These AI tools offer suggestions, corrections, and even compositions, helping applicants present themselves in their essays. They can help in brainstorming ideas, improving grammar and structure, and ensuring that essays meet the necessary word limits. This can be especially helpful for students who may not have access to personal writing coaches or expensive essay editing services, democratizing the application process to some extent.
However, the drawbacks of using AIs for application essays cannot be ignored. One of the most significant concerns is the loss of authenticity. College application essays are an opportunity for students to showcase their unique voices, experiences, and perspectives. Relying too heavily on AI assistance can lead to essays that sound overly polished and lack the personal touch that admissions officers look for. Moreover, the overuse of AIs can undermine the originality and creativity of applicants, making it difficult for admissions committees to distinguish one applicant from another. This can result in a homogenization of application essays, where many applicants sound the same, diminishing the value of individual stories and experiences.
Conclusion: Ensuring Equity in the Post-Affirmative Action Era
In the post-affirmative action era, the adoption of test-optional policies represents a positive step towards equity and fairness in college admissions. However, it also highlights the complex interplay between socio-economic background, diversity, and higher education opportunities. Ensuring that these trends translate into real progress requires ongoing commitment, not only from institutions but from policymakers and society at large.
The new trends in test-optional college applications in the post-affirmative action era mark a significant shift in the pursuit of fairness, diversity, and inclusivity in higher education. While new policies and measures offer a promising path forward, they also underscore the ongoing challenges in creating an equitable admissions process for all students. As colleges and universities continue to refine their approaches, the evolving landscape of college admissions promises a more equitable and inclusive future for aspiring students. These changes call for a collaborative effort between educational institutions, policymakers, and society as a whole to ensure that the benefits of these trends are fully realized.
Joan Didion Since the Year of 1952
2/26/2023
For most of us living 1950s through present, Joan Didion is the coolest person on Earth. Growing up a Californian bourgeois girl, she started writing at age of 5. Her artly letters in 1952 didn’t impress Rixford K Snyder, a then-newly appointed director of admissions at Stanford, still they went on to win her the Prix de Paris and a celebrated career at Vogue. Behind the fames ornate to her writerly fashion, a documentary of Didion’s life story premiered on Netflix on October 10, 2017. That’s when and where I began to learn Didion whose writing has comforted many in the peculiar sorrows of late last century.
The postmodernism around the central borough evoked her nostalgia of the Californian sun and waters, a thought stream that submerged to her 1963 fiction Run, River. Moving back Los Angeles revive Didion’s life thus her career exploded. She, together with husband John Dunne, wrote in many prominent magazines and publications, including Saturday Evening Post, the most popular magazine in 1960s.
There in the Golden State, Didion experienced, immersed, thus best situated to describe hippiedom, the behavior and culture denoted baby boomers. When she invented her fictional writing on such popular reality four years after return to California, Slouching Towards Bethlehem, her first essay collection marked a phenomenon in postmodern American literacy. Her experiences, along with thoughts and feelings, during the period has since served the gateways for us later to walk into the counterculture of a whole post- and oppose-war generation.
While she penned down the turns of American lives of an age in flamboyant realism, the blooms and glooms of her own engrossed readers through her novels and screenplays. In Play It As It Lays of 1970, Maria, the main character, comes from mentally malfunctional parents, lives New York between shuffling jobs, encounters romance outside relationship, has a daughter not of birth and under medical treatments. Reading about Maria drifting through the tumults, one again touches and feels the space and time that casted the minds in Didion.
In a 1992 interview with Charlie Rose, Didion was asked about the beginning of her interest when her mother gave her a Big Five tablet (a children composition notebook) and asked her “stop whining and start writing.”
Didion: She just, just told me to write, you start writing.
Rose: So she recognize then that maybe you had some instinct [gift] that way?
Didion: I thought she just thought it was a way to pass time.
A prowess for life came accidentally by once inattentive parenting. Notably, as she may have long tried to settle, Didion didn’t make some of her grades as big as her essay at McClatchy High School. What did Rixford Snyder say? He rejected her college application despite the gracious essay. Not what Snyder and his admission colleagues say may matter, but Didion has shrewdly wound up a self-respect for her age and ours in her then first-published and since well-read essay on Vogue.
…one's sanity becomes an object of speculation among one's acquaintances.…To free us from the expectations of others, to give us back to ourselves—there lies the great, the singular power of self-respect.
American Colleges since the Year of 1952
4/24/2022
Few people know Rixford K Snyder today. He is a Californian man of longevity. His compliments go much more beyond. He went to Stanford in 1926, and acquired an AB in 1930, an AM in 1934, and a PhD in 1940 — all at the big farm. After courageously fighting the Japanese in early 1940s, he rejoined Stanford and had since taught history there. Beside a reading packet for college kids on western history, the most notable of Snyder's tenure was some 33,000 freshmen in 20 the classes he admitted when he was the director, then dean, of admissions.
But none of you should have known any of these. Neither do I before I googled him today. What prompted me to find about him is a half-a-century old essay crafted by one of the other 70,000 applicants that Snyder rejected during his 20-year reign.
One April afternoon in 1952, Joan Didion went to her room, locked the door, and cried to the letter from Snyder that read “The Committee on Admissions asks me to inform you that it is unable to take favorable action upon your application for admission to Stanford University.” That while, Joan grabbed a bottle of pills, counted them, and pictured herself on a hospital ER bed with Snyder hovering outside trying to find peace.
Thank God. Didion merely counted the pills but didn't swallow — she was bothered by how to take the news to Snyder. We are now happy that we’ve had another fantastic writer for more than half a century. Snyder must be too — he's probably enjoying an unexpected search popularity 12 years beyond his heavenly-being.
What would he say on that none of his 33,000 favorite kids contributed to such a lively reminiscence of him, but this girl among the 70,000 of his unfavorite ones did?
We wouldn't know.
Perhaps there is no better time than now to reread this essay from Didion in 1968. We see, as we read it, that we have been taken far into the age of college rejections as we have crammed ourselves to jostle each other every way we can. Covid-19, while it calamitously put every other aspect of life on halt for some time, is still hurling the college application far more rejective than ever.
Harvard has rejected 59266 applicants during this admission cycle, 20998 more than pre-pandemic — none the additional applications the college received has been admitted. For Yale, the total number may look slightly healthier, 14865 more rejections than pre-pandemic. But it is as ugly as at Harvard when we count it incrementally. Indeed, all of the extra labor that kids put up for the top 20 colleges since two falls ago is worth no more than a sorry.
Things will not get better. Even if kids from our neighbors become lazier, it can only decelerate the application hikes. Reason? Hasn't WFH thrust every moms and dads buggier since this pandemic?
It is better that we be readier than ever before another rejection season kicks in. And the best way is to read from Didion:
“The next year a friend at Stanford asked me to write him a paper on Conrad's Nostromo, and I did, and he got an A on it. I got a B- on the same paper at Berkeley, and the specter of Rixford K. Snyder was exorcised.”
I want to wish Professor Snyder and every crafters of those letters their joy and peace, certainly not for that they missed and will miss the best lucks at some point in their profession.
4/20/2021
America has the best and worse education system in the world.
On one hand, we are endowed with a college education that produces the best scientists, engineers, writers, artists, and entrepreneurs in the world. I should have said there is only a few Gates and Zuckerbergs. The colleges that fulfill our American dreams are also leading us enroute for broader social equality. They balance the demographics and socioeconomics with academics among their applicants.
On the other hand, our K-12 education has been struggling for at least 40 years as we’ve known it, since A Nation At Risk was published by the Reagan administration. The standardized tests that let us see the problem are now demonized as something not designed to tell what kids are taught in classrooms, but what money is about. These tests, which originated from America, are only able to assess Finnish, Japanese, Singaporean, and even Chinese students.
Putting both pictures together, it is clear that our education system is out of synch.
The K-12 classrooms can no longer teach what is whole-worldly valued, both in test and in admission.
The College admission does not treat classroom and test academics as much as they used to do.
Tests, still in line with students’ intelligence level, no longer mark either classroom or admission success.
The results? America is running short of engineers and scientists around its workplaces. According to Smithsonian, there are 2 and half million STEM jobs left unfilled yearly. In every college, contrarily, 1 to 2 thirds of students who enter as engineering majors drop out simply because they are unable to maintain the required academics.
We are also missing out STEM teachers in K-12 classrooms. In U.S. public schools, demands for new teachers, especially in math and science, outpace the supply by more than 100,000. Schools simply cannot find willing and qualified American candidates, but merely 3,500 foreign teachers are hired to teach in America each year. This’s because visa is another big issue to get foreign teachers quickly on board. It’s not only Trump who has not made this problem easier.
So, American students are under-taught in STEM subjects. The famine on math and science teachers is even growing at a growing rate. That is the fundamental cause of supply deficiency in engineers in our economy.
Many highly ranked colleges in America denote their education as the inequality solvers. Admissions have been increasingly tilted towards equality measures for well beyond a decade. Top students are often guided to pour their extra-curricular hours into Rwanda, Myanmar, and Nepal on funded philanthropic projects. Holistic evaluations take into account of candidates’ local and racial backgrounds. It seems the Harvards and Princetons alike have been socially more equal than anywhere else.
Along with inequity in colleges appearing to soften, the lack of teachers and student deficiencies in math and science are still widened. American education is still suffering inequity. But it seems more obvious that we have lowered our education quality while making it more socially equal. It is now both a quality and an equality problem that is troubling us all.
Our eyeballs and respects, both as citizens and parents, have made up the ranks of elite colleges so that they attract more and more our talented sons and daughters even in this pandemic. As colleges expand their fame, wealth and applications in decades, our kids suffer more in schools on things they are supposed to learn and enjoy. Did any of these colleges tell us that the leadership, the altruism and the creativity they touted through admission won’t help slow, stop or reverse the American K-12 deteriorating?
One thing always correlates with students’ math and science performances, and predicts their potentials in STEM fields is the standardized tests. To those education professionals who doubt the integrity of tests, here is a question for you. Why are these tests measuring students in all other countries well, but not on the American students as you deemed? Are you surely able to teach American students into Martians that shouldn’t be evaluated by an Earthly assessment?
1/20/2017
The average SAT verbal score of American high school students has slid from 550 to 500 since 1960s. This average, out of 800, represents 50% accuracy in the test. If we count in the fact that the test is all based on multiple choice, some of the accuracy are result of chance not competence. In plain language, students on average are unable to finish more than 50% of reading and writing questions!
Experts and guidebooks take the students to every mistakes they tend to produce in the test. Some may be unable to discern key ideas from evidences; others may fall short in inferring through the logic. Attention is also paid to content areas such as the genres of passages, graphics, rhetoric, and so on. Granted, mistakes of any kind cost the students score points. But what accounts for the abundance of mistakes? It is ironic to say that students make mistakes because they are making those mistakes. Nothing can be counted as the cause of itself, except our creator.
Talking to many students, I noticed that almost all of them mentioned the same feeling—they don’t know what the materials are talking about. Many keep on reading till late, but still fail to understand. By insisting to try to understand what they eventually not, students use out their time allowance for one part and squeeze that for the rest. When they miss their chances on some easier questions in other parts, the result is disastrous.
Many others give up reading at all. They take up guessing to the best of their knowledge. This second approached are widely taught by the experts and guidebooks as a way to avoid the first disaster. It sounds wise, but is embedded with an erroneous assumption that the students’ best of knowledge will do them good. SAT reading materials are not supposed to repeat what has been presented in the textbooks or taught in the classrooms. Best of knowledge are generally inefficient for students to guess the test. In fact, SAT is increasingly deploying texts of controversial issues and ideas in its reading section. These materials are most likely the hardest for students to understand. The best of knowledge they acquired from classrooms can lead them to totally wrong directions.
Comparing both approaches, the difference—to read the hardest or to guess to the best—is minor. The students are all guided to one same direction—try to understand what they do not. It is assumed that they must understand the reading materials well in order to produce good answers. This assumption is wrong. Students are not learning but reading in the test. They should not be put into a position other than to produce the answers from the reading. Should they be required to learn there, they must be provided the time as much as they have been in the classrooms.
The better approach is to have the students focus on what they know. On stories and ideas that are not already theirs or can’t become quickly, take them as is. Do not read too hard into the material. Neither should they think too far beyond the materials. Their chances of understanding correctly is likely to diminish as they read or think too much. Here by “too much,” I mean to use more than their time allowance. A passage of ten questions is allowed ten minutes to read and answer. To read it for more than 3 minutes before answering any questions is considered “too much.” What they read is only what they know. Then apply logical reasoning on the know.
+ + + Take Away + + +
I’ll steal a concept from Socrates to sum up here: know the knows but not the know-nots. You should read to know, instead of read to learn. When you combine this advice with mind2learn’s critical reading model, the result is what you will love.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse