I don't know why I am ranting or saying this but I really feel that the SAT reasoning test is unfair. I do not see how it is an appropriate measure of aptitude. For example, if a student wants to study engineering at university, the critical reading and writing sections become almost irrelevant. Furthermore, the math section is not comprehensive enough to differentiate the people who are good at math with the people who are exceptional at math.
Furthermore, the critical reading section tests your ability to read and understand. They say, to do well in that section you have to be actively reading from a young age. Really? I read from a young age. I read a lot, but I read to enjoy the literature, to be pulled into it. I read to be captivated, not to quiz myself about the tone of the passage or what the author is trying to imply.
I really just think that the SAT Reasoning is a failure when it comes to differentiating students except for those that, possibly, want to study English or become actuaries or something. I do not see why they cannot put a little time and effort to compare different forms of testing around the world. All they have to do is look at the standard and difficulty of the majority of popular tests around the world (IB/AP/Honors and the other popular tests in countries with lots of applicants) or simply make a SAT subject test for each subject so that a student wanting to study Economics can take an Economics SAT II.
There are many intangibles that are indicator of personality such as extracurriculars and I am not saying anything against that. But I can imagine a boardroom with the admissions council sitting around in a circle comparing two applicants for that last slot as an Economics major. I can portray them discussing how the applicants display leadership and personality well but one has a higher critical reading score or writing score than the other so he has the better application. It just feels like injustice to me. What if the applicant with the lower SAT score aced all his Economics exams with a 99% (an A) while the other received just 91% (possibly still an A so the same GPA)? They may say tough luck, but really why is there the need for luck when the whole arbitrary process can be avoided.
Just before anyone starts saying that I am just another student that may have gotten rejected from schools so I letting out my rage, I am still a junior. I have yet to apply, and I have a good SAT score. I agree that I may be a little biased towards the critical reading section for it is my worst section, but I still really feel that the system, as a whole, is unfair and can easily be changed.