<p>The hardest thing I remember on the SAT math were problems using the Pythagorean Theorem. I remember a bunch of questions like: “What is bigger: x or x^2?” Do we need a PC term for “remedial”–like “difficulty challenged”? Would that make you feel better? LOL. It’s testing the most basic of basic things that you should have learned in algebra and geometry, plus stuff you probably learned earlier than that.</p>
<p>There were other tests that high schoolers take which I wouldn’t have described as remedial. I knew everything on the AP Chem exam, but I wouldn’t describe that test as remedial. You actually had to master the material in order to solve all of the problems. The SATII chem exam was pretty easy by comparison.</p>
<p>And we already established that many people can make one or few arithmetic errors, so in my opinion, the 750 scorer may be just as likely to do well in an engineering class as the 800 one. It’s just when you start getting to 700 that the person may have had trouble solving the problems or are too slow in doing so. So it’s a lot more than 13,000 who essentially could solve all the problems easily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t think the SAT math is remedial, then how hard would you describe MIT classes, or any college classes anywhere? </p>
<p>The essays of the people who got in everywhere and which apparently resonated with the admissions committees were not deep at all. I remember thinking they were closer to “See spot run.” I don’t think expressing deep creative thinking in the writing helps at all, and again, I don’t think they are looking for that quality in the candidate in the first place so why would they be impressed by it in an essay. Feeling charitable, maybe part of it is they have ten thousand essays and they don’t want one that will make them think. That’s my judgement, and you may disagree with it. </p>
<p>fretfulmother, your comment about students who do not like to participate in competitions is absolutely true. I don’t think there is any easy way to correct for that, in an admissions environment where the admissions staffers are only interested in “demonstrated” ability. I am fresh out of hypothetical solutions. :)</p>
<p>I guess I can accept that it’s possible that the upper limit of the math SAT is “too easy” to distinguish between simply competent math students and really excellent ones, but is it really likely, in the real world, that a college admissions committee will be unable to make these distinctions based on the totality of information provided in a college application? It seems to me that in the vast majority of situations, the really excellent math students will have multiple other indicators of this in their applications. Sure, there may be a few math geniuses who never enter competitions, never take advanced classes, etc.–but perhaps such students aren’t entrepreneurial enough about their education in the first place.</p>
<p>You could not have paid my kids to get into math competitions. But some kids clearly thrive on all the competition and challenge and I’m guessing camaraderie that goes with like minded kids doing what they like together in math clubs and things like that. . </p>
<p>I agree. However, I think that colleges would be more likely to value this ability if it were measured in a test that colleges are forced to report. If Harvard’s average SAT score suddenly goes from 800 to 700 and Caltech’s stays at 800, it impacts Harvard’s brand. No college likes to be seen losing to a peer school. Similarly, I have to believe the fact that typically only 25%-75% ranges for test scores are reported also impacts their decision making. In this way, they can satisfy their institutional needs with the bottom 25% without any cost in terms of how smart their admitted class appears to outsiders. </p>
<p>It has been interesting to learn more about these competitions and math circles and things like that. <a href=“http://www.mathcircles.org/node/269”>http://www.mathcircles.org/node/269</a> I would be curious if there’s ever been any research done about how kids do once they get to college. In other words, do the kids that have been in stuff like this routinely run rings around everybody else? Do things even out at some point between kids that started early with accelerated math and those that went through a more typical high school progression, ending maybe at BC Calculus. </p>
<p>". If Harvard’s average SAT score suddenly goes from 800 to 700 and Caltech’s stays at 800, it impacts Harvard’s brand. No college likes to be seen losing to a peer school"</p>
<p>Rofl! Harvard’s “brand” is not impacted by any slight decline in SAT scores. You’ve confused “what nerds with no lives think and care about” with “what confers status and prestige.” Harvard’s brand appeal and equity is quite expansive, and very little of it rests on the precise SAT averages of its students. </p>
<p>College alum, essays don’t need to be deep. They need to be engaging. There is a difference. </p>
<p>And if the average person at MIT sniffs that “the SAT is just a remedial test,” then blech, how nerdy and unappealing can one get? Talk about overcompensating. Get a grip on yourselves. </p>
<p>x-post. CollegeAlum: deep? maybe not. Highly intellectual? Not what they are looking for. But hit the mark, one way or another? Very much so. You haven’t liked the essays you’ve read IRL? At the high stakes level, See spot Run isn’t acceptable. Remember, there will still be plenty of kids who can be engaging in the right ways. More than enough of them.</p>
<p>Btw, we all have to remember things change, especially since we applied to college and that can apply to since our kids did. The growing competition allows more choice. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - I see an inherent contradiction here:</p>
<p>"Rofl! Harvard’s “brand” is not impacted by any slight decline in SAT scores. You’ve confused “what nerds with no lives think and care about” with “what confers status and prestige.” Harvard’s brand appeal and equity is quite expansive, and very little of it rests on the precise SAT averages of its students. "</p>
<p>"And if the average person at MIT sniffs that “the SAT is just a remedial test,” then blech, how nerdy and unappealing can one get? Talk about overcompensating. Get a grip on yourselves. "</p>
<p>We’re supposed to not care about SAT scores? Or to yes care about SAT scores? They do or don’t matter…?</p>
<p>I think it’s a bit of a straw man to interpret a few statements dismissing the SAT as low level, as being instead a general habit of going around talking too much about the SAT (“overcompensating”).</p>
<p>I never heard any people “at MIT” going around “sniff[ing] that the SAT is just a remedial test”. I’m almost nerdy enough to clarify that this was because no one at MIT would go around stating the obvious. ;)</p>
<p>However, and perhaps most important: the best thing we can learn from this is that it’s good to go to a college and find friends who feel one is just nerdy enough, with some helpful challenges to one’s comfort zone as well.</p>
<p>No one thinks or talks about the SAT at MIT. It was brought up here because admissions has said that there is no difference between a 700 and 800. Compared to the average final exam in high school algebra and particularly geometry, the SAT math is very easy. (Am I allowed to say that?) And if you have difficulty solving any of the problems, you may have problems doing well or even passing engineering or math-based science classes at MIT. At the very least, you may start to see meaningful differences in mathematics proficiency which may hurt you in college. These classes require significant growth in themselves, and mastery of the basics is assumed. </p>
<p>I guess the word “remedial” is a loaded word. It seems to have upset you. I meant “testing basic skills”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does this mean I’m not invited to the sorority party?<br>
You’ve made quite a leap here and you’re the one that needs to get a grip on yourself. I don’t know what you think the implications of saying the SAT math is “remedial” beyond just saying that the test is basic compared to the level required in college, but whatever this drama is, it’s going on in your own head. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard’s brand is that they take the smartest people, and they all happen to have a variety of different talents. They like to win at everything in general. I’m sure they wouldn’t like it if they all of a sudden started losing crew races to Yale year after year, either. Nor would they like it if they lost the Putnam (a well-known math contest). And I believe they are more sensitive to losing talent in math than they might be in another field (e.g., chemistry) where there is no clear indication of who has the best people. When they decided to raise the academic standards of their athletes about 10 years ago, the ivy league schools all did it together as a group, not one by one. I assume it was best that way so no one was suddenly at a competitive disadvantage. </p>
<p>Is Harvard’s brand that hey “take the smartest?” Or that their programs, challenges, etc, are among the more rigorous? And filled by a high level of competence. Plus all the rest about fin aid, other college- years opportunities and connections/networking. Calling it “the” smartest can imply something about kids who don’t get admitted. Plus cycle us back to the same old question, “Well, how’s that assessed”?</p>
<p>Personally, the Ivies may have sought better academics in more athletes than previously, but imo it’s still a mess.</p>
<p>Actually, there are a number of SAT problems that are well beyond the basics you described above. Questions such as “What is bigger: x or x^2?” would be more the domain of the Iowa boys than the Princeton writers! </p>
<p>I would suggest (again) to people interested in ascertaining the current state of SAT “babies” to spend some time on the SAT Help forum. The reality might be different from what appears here. The challenges presented by the questions are not strictly math based or HS math based, but reward students who have learned how to think and rely on logic in … addition to the rote based memorization of our typical schools. In that regard, it is easy to understand why students who have participated in various competitions or simply have an affinity for math or word puzzles do so well on the SAT. Geniuses might very well be the result of a higher level of … repetitions. </p>
<p>As far as an increased scale beyond 800, that makes little sense as the tenet of the standardized test is to seek a mean attainable by the average student. In this case, the 800 has to be relevant to the 500 mean. In addition, one could say that the extension does exist in the form of the subject tests. And despite the fact that the results have been trivialized by the incorporation of a graphic calculator. </p>
<p>The SAT 1200 points could be developed by reworking the SAT Level I (which is harder than the Math Level II) but VERY few would do well on it! Probably inline with a fraction of the students who qualify for AIME. Probably in the 20 to 30 percent range at best. </p>
<p>In this regard, it will be interesting to see how students fare on the SAT Reasoning with the restrictions on the use of calculators. Of course, there are a few of us who think that the reason TCB allows calculators is to an additional false friend as it represents a timesink and a poisoned gift to the mediocre test taker. If it is essential on the subject tests, it is a hindrance on the regular SAT. </p>
<p>It is a good to remember that TCB removed the QC questions because they were too challenging:</p>
<p>For example this is one that, despite being really easy, was challenging most students or robbing them of precious time:</p>
<p>Given<br>
s-r = t-s = m-t = v-m = w-v </p>
<p>Is A greater, smaller than B or equal to B? </p>
<p>A. t-r
B. (w-v) + (t-s) </p>
<p>I dropped the “cannot be determined.”
Every question on the SAT can be solved in less than a minute! Give yourself less than 15 seconds!</p>
<p>=========
Fwiw, here was the answer suggested by a bona fide math genius who graduated from Harvard:</p>
<p>If you want to see a formal algebra way, set s-r = t-s = m-t = v-m = w-v = x. Then we’d have
s=r+x
t=s+x=(r+x)+x=r+2x
m=t+x=(r+2x)+x=r+3x
so on… </p>
<p>@xiggi - I actually think the x vs. x^2 question is harder than current questions.</p>
<p>In fact, I think it is one of the questions back from the day when there were still “quantitative comparisons” and English “analogy” questions. It is easy, but not trivial, to realize the answer is D (cannot be determined).</p>
<p>Um, xiggi, the SAT logic type problems do not require any special preparation. Certainly not math competitions for preparation, and I don’t think repetition is the key. It might help some people, but I suspect that math contests would not tend to appeal to anyone who actually needs repetition to solve SAT-level problems. I think the theory of “10,000 hours to virtuoso accomplishments” is in the process of being debunked.</p>
<p>Also, I thought that Harvard’s brand was: “We dominate in everything. All the time. No exceptions. We are the best, and all the rest of American academia is modeled on us.” (No slam intended against my friends at Harvard!)</p>
<p>I can see that but I also know that students with a modicum of SAT preparation (or other) have learned that that x can be equal to 1 or zero. Hence, the triviality of the question. But it is also the exact part that remained challenging for most students who went through a regular HS Math program that did not require much “out of the box” thinking. </p>