[Course Forum] SAT Comprehensive by jonny

Community-Created Courses English (American)
2

I am very interested in this course. However, the course search does not work properly. Could you please provide a link to the course? Thank you! :relaxed:

4

I think what @aquaviolet meant was this link:
https://www.memrise.com/course/948/sat-comprehensive/

Happy learning!

1 Like
5

Yeah, I was trying to correct my comment immediately, but Memrise wouldn’t let me. These new forums are incredibly confusing and buggy.

1 Like
6

Thank you both! :smile:

1 Like
7

@oneyedananas,

I think that you intend this to be the [Course Forum] thread for feedback for the SAT course. If that is correct, then you should change the thread title to “[Course Forum] SAT Comprehensive by Jonny.”

The thread title of “Official…” is very misleading, because the course is created by “jonny” and not created or maintained by the Educational Testing Service, which owns the SAT.

1 Like
8

Hi. I am studying this course for a while.
I want to improve the course by

  • remove duplicate
  • correct mistake
  • clarify definition (different word same definition etc)

Who should I ask for that? It seems creater of the course isn’t on forum.

9

Hi @oneyedananas

Are you still active as the main course contributor for SAT Comprehensive ?
If so, can you kindly look into the issues mentioned above? No worries if you’re too busy, we can then look into adding additional contributors.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Lien

10

Sure, but other reliable contributors would definitely be a good idea - the course is terribly large and there are copious amounts of similar issues :frowning: @Lien

11

Also, for the reasons mentioned in the other response I made, please get specific, we need to tackle the issues gradually on a one-by-one basis.

12

Hello oneyedananas,

I would like to offer my assistence in adding audio to the words in this course. Very gradually, I have only learned a dozen levels myself in this enormous course since German and Spanish are my main focus.

Sofar I have serious doubts about the description for these words:

aggrandize - exaggerate (level 7)
vilify - v. condemn (10)
scurrilous - (of an article, remark) containing damaging and untrue statements about someone (12)

13

Hi, everyone.

I am at a few more level to complete couse now. During the learning days, I took the note when I find something odd. So there are a lot of issues I want to talk about.

Yes @oneyedananas, I agree that we need to do it gradually. It will be confusing to many people if the course changes frequently and haphazardly.

Let’s get specific. First, these are duplications I find.

Word           Level     Description
discrepancy       56    n. lack of similarity
                 164    n. a lack of similarity
donor             84    giver
                  58    n. one who donates
galvanize         34    v. stimulate as if by electricity
galvanise        186    v. inspire
globular         153    adj. in the form of a globule or gobbet
                  67    adj. globe-shaped
incomprehensible  92    not capable of being understood
                 119    adj. impossible to understand
plaudits          93    praise; applause (from an audience)
                 101    praise; applaus from audience.
poignant          32    causing sad feelings
                  50    something that makes an impression, usually in a melancholic way
satirical        101    adj. containing or using satire
                 168    adj. mocking the establishment
virulent         188    exceedingly noxious
                 116    adj. (of a disease or poison) extremely severe or harmful in its effects
polemic           40    text written out of anger
polemics         158    n. the art of academic dispute

10-11-2017 edit: Correct level of donor, globular, satirical, virulent. Add polemic.

Next time, I will post words that cannot be distinguished because they have same (or almost same) description.

@duaal What alternative description would be better do you think?

P.S. Thank you Lien for summoning maintainer.

1 Like
14

I think the definitions of Merriam-Webster are clearer. But all definitions are better than those currently offered for these words in the course.

About your duplicate list: did you state the levels correctly for donor, globular, satirical and virulent because I can’t find those.

15

Oops, sorry. I’ll correct them soon.

16

Next, here are the words that have same definition.

The problem is when we are asked the word that have these definitions, there isn’t a way to distinguish the word from definition, so it becomes testing of luck rather than memory. Furthermore, If we choose wrong one, memrise reschedule the word sooner time, end up thease words get scheduled more frequently than needed.

Solutions would be:

  1. Rewrite definition so it reflect word’s nuance
  2. Add more detailed description to definition.
    ex)
    endemic: adj. native. native to perticular area culture
    indigenous: adj. native. born in native area
  3. Add alternative words to the definition
    ex)
    valorous: adj. brave; courageous, plucky
    courageous: adj. brave; valorous, plucky
    plucky: adj. brave; valorous, courageous
  4. Register alternative words as alternative answer to memrize

1 is prettier but bigger change would cause confusion to people. 2, 3 would be less confusing since original definition is preserved. What I don’t suggest is 4, if we do that we end up answering whichever the word we happended to be rememberd.

Next time, I will expand this list to words that does not have literally same definition, but have definition which meaning is similar.

P.S. Are there any better way to post a table?

17

Hello there, if you’re still up for it, let me know and I will add you.

18

Hi Stream, would you be interesting in becoming an editor of the course?

19

GUIDELINES FOR EDITORS

For definitions, use Merriam-Webster, Oxford or Cambridge Dictionaries (or a combination of those). Go for the clearest, simplest definition, but don’t be afraid to go into detail, since there are many words and we want to be as unambiguous and comprehensive as possible. So multiple meanings and alternative definitions are encouraged where due, but always separate them numerically.

The result should look something like this:

  1. (part of speech / grammatical note / level of formality / connotations) First definition
  2. (…) Second definition / synonym
  3. (…) Third definition / synonym
  4. (…) Synonym 3, synonym 4, synonym 5

In case there are more synonyms, just separate them with a comma, no need to number those. Also, there is a separate column for the part of speech in the database, so you can add that in there. I realize that these definitions are quite annoying to make and not exactly friendly towards mobile phone users, but since we are dealing with advanced vocabulary and there is so much of it, I feel like it is ultimately for the best.

Any suggestions, improvements and discussion are welcome.

Thank you.
Martin

20

Certainly, I am not capricious. :wink:

21

Sure, If that helps.

Yeah, for mobile users, I think definition should be as succinct as possible while distinguishable. For synonym, I think we should stick to the words that exist in this course. There are a lot of synonyms out there if we look strictly. For multipe definition, I think we should basically stick to current choice. If we feel current one is not the ideal choice, then we can append new one like you mentioned.

By the way, It will take a few more days to compile my memo. It will be a list of 500+ words.

22

Hi, everyone.

Here is the list of words that I think it has confusing definition. Still rough shape, but I think you can see the idea.

I think they can be classified as follow:

  • Type A: Same Definition
    Literally same (or almost same) definition.
    ex) words in the list I previously posted.

  • Type B: Similar Definition
    Definitions which mean (almost) same thing.
    ex)
    antagonism: n. state of hosterity
    animosity: n. a state of ill will

  • Type C: Partially Distinguishable Definition
    Combination of adequately specific definition and ambiguous definition.

    ex.1)
    annex: n. addition to a building or document – (1)
    addendum: n. additional text added to document – (2)

    I can identify annex from definition (1), but I can think of both annex and addendum from definition (2).

    ex. 2)
    flexible: adj. capble of bending – (1)
    pliable: adj. easily bent; flexible – (2)

    I can identify pliable from (2) because it lists flexible as a synonym, but I can think of both flexible and pliable from (1), because it doesn’t exclude pliable as a synonym.

  • Type D: Distinguable
    It confuses me because I am stupid :slight_smile:

Next time I will classify words with above categories. I think we should focus on type A and B. I think that narrows list in half and fixing those definition will be nice improvement.