<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong.</p>
<p>(Two daughters who scored wildly differently – one with double 800’s – but it was equally non-informational for both, in terms of what kinds of college students they would be and did prove to be. What predicted and proved was the entire K-12 previous curriculum & their performance in that, the supplemental and ancillary opportunities they took advantage of, etc.)</p>
<p>[Aptitude</a> Testing at the JOCRF](<a href=“http://www.jocrf.org/]Aptitude”>http://www.jocrf.org/)</p>
<p>This is a place that tests aptitudes, with no studying needed! It wouldn’t help on college apps, but certainly helps in figuring out what would be good choices for a major (or things you should avoid).</p>
<p>I was lucky enough to go here as a teenager and loved the whole experience. They were very encouraging and explained how some aptitudes can be inverses of each other. For example, seeing things in 3-D versus abstract thinking (which is why philosophers don’t build bridges and vice versa).</p>
<p>They also admitted that some things CAN’T be accurately tested for. Creativity, artistic ability and pure MATH being those things. This was in the late 70’s so maybe advances have been made, I don’t know.</p>
<p>My SIL has taught SAT prep classes and tutored students for the SAT for years, and she says the SAT is a) completely coachable, and b) a money machine for the College Board and the test prep companies. If the SAT were truly measuring intelligence or aptitude, it wouldn’t be as coachable as it is. </p>
<p>I prefer the ACT. It tests what you know, and I believe it’s less coachable than the SAT.</p>
<p>But instead of arguing over the 3.9 kid with the 1800 SAT, I think the more troubling stats are the kids with a 2.8 GPA and a 2100 on the SAT. That tends to scream “Slacker” at admissions offices. Unless you attend a hs that is known for being extremely difficult and competitive and you take a ridiculously hard course load, or you can explain your grades as being due to extended absences (illness, family circumstance), explaining away that discrepancy is gonna be hard. The best predictor of how you will do in college is how you do in hs, and every college knows that. So for all of you kids who can’t be bothered to do “busywork” and think your brilliant SAT score is gonna get you into Olde Ivy… good luck.</p>
<p>
Is it possible that this is one of those statements that works equally well forwards or backwards? What I’m driving at is: if the SAT were not so heavily coached, it would do a better job of measuring intelligence or aptitude–i.e., the fact that intensive coaching and prep work can raise scores significantly adds noise to the picture. If everybody took the test “cold,” without preparation, the results might be a lot more meaningful, because then the test would be measuring how well a student had acquired and retained those skills over the course of their whole education. </p>
<p>For example, if a kid does well on math questions covering topics he hasn’t studied in two years, that means he really understood them at the time, and retained them well–and that might mean something relevant to admissions. But if half the kids taking the test having been practicing intensively on similar questions for the last six months, then you get a situation where similar results mean very different things, and then the test loses much of whatever usefulness it might have had.</p>
<p>“If everybody took the test “cold”, without preparation, the results might be alot more meaningful…”</p>
<p>Probably so, but the stakes are so high that that won’t happen. Around here, public school students take the PSAT for 3 or 4 years before it actually counts. The school system wants bragging rights for having a lot of National Merit Finalists and so they direct a lot of resources and study time for that test. I find it a bit sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely anecdotal, and utterly without statistical significance. I can point to dozens of opposite histories which are just as valid.</p>
<p>In any case, the Elites do not use SAT to measure college performance and post-college performance. They evaluate success through extracurriculars, particularly those off-campus, as indicators of independent drive, as they have found a strong correlation between that and post-high-school achievement.</p>
<p>Reply to Greenwitch and Nightchef’s comments:
I think there would be different results if the test was taken cold every time but it is hard to say if the results would be any more meaningful. For example, in math, not all kids or schools are on the same schedule, one student might have taken a course more recently than another. This is especially true because in many areas kids are getting an early jump on HS math in MS. This isn’t the way it is in every school around the country. There are also other factors, some kids are better test takers, a gap that can be narrowed with repeat testing. Some may not understand the pacing of the test, some may not be prepared to think at that level so early in the morning, some may be overwhelmed and distracted by the length of the test, some may be indirectly better prepared by their school and environment. The list can go on forever. I agree that when a student tests cold and tests well it is probably a great indicator of potential for strong college performance,but I don’t believe that a poor score necessarily accurately reflects the student’s abilities or more to the point lack of it. </p>
<p>It is never fair, some kids will always have more opportunities than others but everyone can gain access to a review book. No matter what, the student who studies and improves or gets to a high dollar tutoring and improves still had to put in a fair amount of effort to make the change and come about. This too is a trait that will make them successful in college. It is unfortunate that many kids feel the pressure to devote a disproportionate amount of effort into preparing for these tests and are therefore pulled from other more meaningful HS activities. In that regard it would be much easier if students just got one cold shot, it just wouldn’t necessarily yield more accurate results. Now that I think of it that is how it was for me in HS. Lets just say that was a long time ago.</p>
<p>
Wow, I’m glad to know my 33 ACT (equivalent to roughly a 2180) and 4.0 UW HS GPA were so incongruent!</p>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>^^^You’re fine^^^</p>
<p>I have a 3.7 and a 2300, and I consider my scores incongruous.</p>
<p>There is very little disagreement that standardized tests measure one’s ability at taking a standardized test. Even the test makers will probably concede this point. The question is: “What kind of skills enable one to perform well on standardized tests?”</p>
<p>Obviously, some amount of previous knowledge is required. A student must be reasonably well-versed in the basics of high-school mathematics, grammar, and vocabulary. Being able to read and interpret written language quickly is also helpful. However, the bar for these prerequisites is set quite low.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, standardized tests measure willpower and concentration above all else. One’s ability to focus exclusively on the question at hand and clearly understand it is paramount.
This is an interesting point because it highlights the subjectivity of “post-high-school achievement.” I read a rather fascinating essay on this topic last week - perhaps I can dig it up for you - and was surprised to see how carefully admissions officers at Harvard and other elite schools choose applicants that fit their subjective assessment of quality. In the case of Harvard, a strong emphasis was placed on choosing students who would go on to acquire power and/or influence, hence the value of “leadership” ECs. While many would-be applicants on CC bemoan the admission of athletic recruits with otherwise sub-par stats, It seems that said athletes often tend to possess characteristics that propel them to leadership positions in industry and government. This fits Harvard’s goal nicely.</p>
<p>The same can also be said for top science schools and/or honors programs with a focus on research. They are more likely to choose applicants with research experience because these applicants already have some of what it takes to achieve a career as a research scientist.</p>
<p>EDIT
One more thing: arguing about how the SATs hurt economically disadvantaged students is ridiculous. Poor students are disadvantaged with regards to every single criteria involved in college admissions. The SATs are among the least biased, since SAT-specific prep really only requires a $15 book available in most libraries. High school rigor and ECs are both far more disenfranchising.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve long suspected that people-skills, teamwork and leadership trump grades in the long run. That seems to have been the case in my professional world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone four years removed from this process, I know. 
I was just pointing out how odd it is to refer to 2180-ish as an red flag raising score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if the SATs are the least biased, but I agree that there are other things that are more disenfranchising. But the SATs are easy targets for the critics.</p>