The problem with analogies is that in practice, what they tested was 10% reasoning, and 90% "has this student seen SAT-style analogy questions before." A student from a mediocre school would be at a severe disadvantage because they would have to spend a non-trivial amount of their limited time figuring out what the question was even asking and getting used to the notation, while someone who went to a good school could skip straight to the reasoning. SAT prep classes also focused heavily on analogy questions, which created the perception (dunno how accurate) that analogies in particular were a better measure of your parents' wallet than your own brain. That the analogy questions were poorly explained on the test is probably a solvable problem (ditch the : :: : notation!), but they still require non-trivial explanation, which will inevitably give an advantage to students familiar with the format.

I think analogies are important too. They require the students to consider meanings on multiple levels and establish common connections. More than that too, they require students build up a semi-decent vocabulary.

As for the math, that may be a product of the No Child Left Behind policy. "If we can't get kids to pass, we'll just make the work easier!" The natural way towards advancement, would be to make education increasingly tougher, to demand higher standards for youth, in this ever-advancing world. How are we getting anywhere by moving backwards?

lmkg is correct. The SAT is not a test that tests your knowledge; it's a test that tests how many test prep classes you've taken. It's shaped by money and politics, and not by how to better assess students' knowledge.

I offer my sole data point with no value-laden broad-application. I never took a single prep-class, nor read a prep-book, and went to typical public schools for my education. I scored a 730 on the SAT reading section.