<p>Just wanted to throw in a side note on the “GPA=effort” thing: it doesn’t always. I have a son whose weighted GPAs for the past three years have gone 2.9, 3.5, 4.5. He isn’t trying any harder now, or spending any more time on his schoolwork, than he was two years ago. But he has become much more focused, organized, and efficient, and his grades are therefore reflecting his degree of effort more accurately. </p>
<p>Coping successfully with a heavy academic workload requires not only motivation but also specific skills which, like test-taking, come more naturally to some kids than others (and also later to some kids than others).</p>
<p>I definitely think that SAT scores can be significantly improved. I made the mistake of taking the SAT my freshman year, and did well on the math, but still got sub 2000. I retook it junior year and got a 2220 (I wish the SAT had more aspects than writing, CR, and math).</p>
<p>The SAT tests you in math that you learned 5 years ago, so you constantly over think every problem, and the CR seems to test how well you are able to stay awake than critical reading skills. I only wish there were physics, chemistry, and biology portions as well.</p>
<p>If standardized testing has to do with intelligence then why is there such a large discrepancy for a lot of people (myself included) between SAT and ACT?</p>
<p>Kids in my district live in a town without a museum, a college campus, a community orchestra or a stop light. We drive almost two hours to get to the closest mall and high school productions are the closest many of our kids get to theatre.</p>
<p>My time on CC has taught me that there is accidental and incidental SAT prep that are by-products of living in a more urban environment enriched with experiences. Experiences that bright, hard working students in my community simply cannot access.</p>
I think there’s a good deal of truth in this, although I also think that the single most important kind of “accidental and incidental” SAT prep is available in any town that has a library.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything that could ever measure the desire of a human being. College campus’ across the country are filled with kids who will do exceedingly well, and rise far above the expectations of many people who might have known them. </p>
<p>One of my clients would never have gone to college if it had not been for a H.S coach that told him he would not play him if he did’nt apply. That kid attended a N.J state school and is now the CFO of a major corporation. He told me one day that something turned around for him on his very first day of classes at his college, and he never again missed any opportunity that came his way. He is a remarkable man that as a youngster needed someone to give him a push. That is why I always say, the people I admire the most are the hardest working not just the smartest.</p>
<p>I bet Einstein would have done really badly on the SAT.</p>
<p>These tests seem best at measuring… how well you take tests. That’s about it. There’s been no correlation shown between the scores and college GPA, time it takes to graduate, future career success, etc. That’s why it’s no longer called the scholastic aptitude test.</p>
<p>I think colleges like them because it helps simplify the application process. The College Board likes them because they make lots of money. But what a waste of energy!</p>
<p>Imagine… all the time and resources put into test taking, test prep, yet more test taking and even more test prep, and using that instead for a great research project or art installation. Hell, you could probably write a book or build a house with all the time and energy some kids spend on the SAT. Or at least, take one more class and learn something from it that’s really worthwhile.</p>
<p>Standardizing testing makes it easier to sort students, quantify them and label them.</p>
<p>Yes, in most cases there is correlation between scores/ aptitude and performance…but I have seen some real discrepancies beginning with the elementary grades. Cases where students are tested out of programs that could help them by inflated grades on standardized test, times when kids are shut out of enrichment opportunites because of poor test results. And so from the beginning of a kid’s education, standardized tests often become the gatekeepers.</p>
<p>If they are used as one factor in making educational decisions, then the tests have a place. But when they are used as just about the only factor, then it is a real problem.</p>
If the SAT only measured “how well you take tests,” then you could replace the questions on the SAT with questions about farming, quantum mechanics, or American Idol, and the test results should remain fairly consistent for the same takers. The very fact that some people do much better on the ACT than the SAT shows that the SAT measures more (or less) than “how well you take tests.” You might have a point if you narrowed it even further to a tautology, and said that the SAT measures how well you take the SAT. But I think there’s more to it than that. I think the SAT does measure the development of certain specific academic/cognitive skills. Where there’s room for argument is how useful that measurement is in evaluating the taker’s readiness to succeed in college (or at a specific college).</p>
<p>I’ve been wondering about this for a while. Since I joined CC, it seems I’ve only seen posts about students scoring higher on the ACT than the SAT, sometimes significantly higher. Did most people, who took both tests, score higher on the ACT than the SAT?</p>
<p>The SAT does not only measure how well you take tests. But the SAT Reasoning Test (SATI) primarily measures how well you take the SAT Reasoning (SAT I) test. This is why an entire industry of books, courses, and training materials has grown up specificially around taking this test. </p>
<p>I tutored this test for many years at a well known place with a good reputation for increasing scores. And that’s what they promised - to increase scores on this test. They do not provide some sort of intellectual boot camp for all around academic excellence. They did not promise to make you an expert at critical exegesis, or a master of complex logic and mathematical strategy such as that required for the AIME tests. They tutor specifically to the SAT I test, which is pretty much a skill unlike any other skill in academia. For many students (lower scoring students), the key to increasing their score is simply not wasting time on answering more difficult questions. For other students they also teach time management, and give strategies based on the way CollegeBoard designs problems (a perfect example is the way to solve two linear equations).</p>
<p>A lot of it is just practice. For the math portion, most kids have all the requisite math by sophmore year (on CC probably by the eighth grade). If you gave me two similarly successful students - one who spent the year before the exam practicing calculus problems, and the second who spent the year working sample SAT math problems, I would put my money on student 2.</p>
<p>I believe the ACT is 33% math compared to 25% on SAT. The ACT has a science section, the SAT does not. I think the SAT has more reasoning type questions and a vocab section. I’d follow my strengths.</p>
<p>Not that anyone cares, but I wanted to make clear that I am not denigrating the accomplishments of kids who obtain excellent or perfect SAT scores. I certainly did not get perfect scores when I took it in high school, and it is a considerable testament to the students that they achieve this.</p>
<p>The thing that annoys me is that whenever somebody gets a high GPA, there seem to be people who want to belittle them as “grade grubbers” or beneficiaries of grade inflation, when their SAT scores don’t pass some magical score threshold. It’s almost like people have stock in the CollegeBoard. On the other hand, I don’t think it is appropriate for people with high GPAs and lower scores to maintain that the test means nothing.</p>
<p>Frankly, it shouldn’t matter much to me anyway, since I am just incredibly grateful this morning that my own kid passed all his classes this semester.</p>
<p>And apologies to the OP if I am the one who hijacked his thread. I’m just going to have to stop reading threads with “SAT” in the title.</p>
<p>It has always seemed to me that the people that complained that the SAT is irrelevant have been the ones that don’t do as well as they would like on it. </p>
<p>yes, yes, there are exceptions, blah blah blah, but i rarely see anyone with a 2200+ complaining about how the SAT doesn’t test what they learn in school… many (most?) complaints seem to come from the people with 4.7’s and an 1800. That either leads to “Oh, the SAT is unfair” or “Oh, I’m a bad test-taker.”</p>
<p>Granted, there are bad test-takers, but not nearly as many as there are people that claim to be bad test-takers.</p>
<p>Well yes I understand that, that was my point. Some people have said they both measure intelligence… how can one say you’re more intelligent than say 70% of people and the other ones says more than 99% of people? My point is that it does NOT measure intelligence like some people are saying- it measures how well you can take that particular test.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think the test is irrelevant but I don’t bow down and worship the College Board. I don’t believe the test booklet was delivered on Mt. Sinai. And my scores have always been very high. And I’m not the only person on this message board with high scores with this opinion.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, it seems to me that there are probably equally many complaints from people with high test scores and lower GPAs.</p>