Read our comprehensive analysis of the December 6, 2025 SAT exam, featuring student and tutor feedback, detailed section breakdowns, and score report expectations.
The December 6, 2025 SAT administration has sparked widespread discussion among test-takers across the country, with students describing an exam that defied expectations and left many questioning their preparation strategies. As thousands of high school students filed out of testing centers that Saturday morning, a clear consensus began to emerge: this was not a typical SAT experience.
Perhaps no aspect of the December SAT generated more discussion than the second math module. Students who entered the testing room confident in their mathematical abilities found themselves struggling with questions that many described as unusually complex and time-consuming.
The adaptive nature of the digital SAT means that students who perform well on the first module receive a more challenging second module. However, even accounting for this design, test-takers reported that the difficulty spike felt more severe than in previous administrations. Students who routinely score in the high 700s on practice tests described feeling completely unprepared for what they encountered.
Parameter-Based Questions: Many students noted an abundance of parameter-based questions requiring them to solve for unknown constants—a question type that appeared with unusual frequency and complexity. These questions demanded deeper analytical thinking and efficient problem-solving strategies that went beyond standard practice test preparation.
Hybrid Math-Reading Questions: What particularly caught students off guard was the presence of questions that seemed to blur the line between math and reading comprehension. Several test-takers reported encountering lengthy word problems that felt more like reading passages than traditional math questions. These hybrid questions required students to parse through extensive context before even beginning their calculations, a format that consumed precious time and mental energy.
Calculator Limitations: The graphing calculator tool Desmos, which has become a lifeline for many digital SAT test-takers, proved insufficient for some of the more complex problems. Students who had mastered various calculator techniques found that the questions demanded deeper conceptual understanding that technology alone couldn't provide. This highlights the importance of understanding underlying mathematical concepts rather than relying solely on calculator shortcuts.
In contrast to the math section's near-universal difficulty, student experiences with the Reading and Writing portion varied more widely. Many test-takers found the vocabulary questions manageable, though certain words stumped even well-prepared students.
Passage Length and Complexity: The reading passages themselves drew mixed reviews. Some students noted that passages felt longer than usual, particularly for fill-in-the-blank style questions. The comprehension questions required careful analysis, and several students mentioned struggling with inference-based questions that demanded nuanced understanding of complex texts.
Grammar and Sentence Structure: Grammar and punctuation questions appeared fairly standard, with semicolon usage and sentence structure questions featuring prominently. However, some students reported encountering sentence construction options where none of the choices seemed entirely natural—a frustrating experience that left many second-guessing their answers. This pattern of ambiguous answer choices has become increasingly common in recent SAT administrations.
Performance Reversal: Overall, many students felt the Reading and Writing section was slightly easier than their math experience, a reversal from their typical performance patterns. Students who usually excel at math and struggle with verbal sections found themselves in unfamiliar territory, hoping their reading scores might compensate for mathematical difficulties.
For many test-takers, the December SAT carried additional weight as their final opportunity to improve scores before college application deadlines. Seniors who had hoped to end their testing journey on a high note instead found themselves grappling with disappointment and uncertainty.
The Practice Test Disconnect: The disconnect between practice test performance and actual exam difficulty left students questioning the value of their preparation methods. Several noted that official College Board practice materials seemed inadequate preparation for what they actually encountered. Students who had dedicated their entire Thanksgiving break to preparation, completing numerous practice tests with scores consistently in the 1480-1500 range, found themselves doubting whether they would reach even 1450 on the actual exam.
The Last-Chance Reality: This was literally the last opportunity for seniors applying to regular decision programs. The emotional toll of feeling unprepared despite substantial effort resonated with many fellow test-takers. For seniors who needed this final attempt to improve their scores, the increased difficulty created significant anxiety about whether their scores would meet application requirements.
Students who had taken earlier SAT administrations offered valuable perspective on the December exam's relative difficulty. Many compared it unfavorably to the November and August 2024 tests, describing the math section as noticeably more challenging.
Difficulty Escalation: Some test-takers noted that certain questions seemed recycled from previous administrations, a common College Board practice. However, the overall exam composition and difficulty level struck most as distinctly harder than recent precedent. This continues the pattern observed throughout 2025, where actual exams have proven substantially more difficult than official practice materials suggest.
Scoring Curve Speculation: The question of scoring curves emerged frequently in post-exam discussions. Students speculated that the College Board might apply a more generous curve given the apparent difficulty, though such predictions remain speculative until official scores release. However, based on recent 2025 administrations, students should expect their actual scores to be 50-100 points lower than their practice test averages.
Beyond content difficulty, some students faced technical challenges that compounded their stress. Reports emerged of calculator tools malfunctioning mid-exam, preventing students from utilizing graphing capabilities they had relied upon in practice. Others mentioned timing issues, with at least one student describing the heartbreak of having an answer ready but being unable to enter it before the module timed out.
Digital Format Challenges: These technical hiccups, while likely affecting only a small percentage of test-takers, underscore the unique pressures of the digital testing format. Students should be prepared for potential technical issues and have backup strategies that don't rely solely on calculator tools or digital interface features.