<p>Just curious. I have a 1170 which is not a impressive score at all. Im curious to know if my 5 ap test scores can make that up.. I have 2 (3's) 2 (4's) and 1 (5)</p>
<p>The 4s and 5s could help a little, but likely not much.</p>
<p>i.c. Shouldn't AP scores tell more about the student then the SAT?</p>
<p>I don't think that colleges look at AP score when deciding admissions. I think they only look at them when deciding to give you credits or advanced placement after admissions. So I'd say that's a no.</p>
<p>COlleges can look at aP scores taken during soph and junior years. But they can never substitute for a SAT. Sadly, it's true, but people tend to naturally think that if a person has a high SAT, he's smart and if he doesn't, he's dumb.</p>
<p>....:(....</p>
<p>Try taking ACT instead</p>
<p>Look at SAT optional schools, as well. There is a good archive concerning this matter:</p>
<p>Though I agree with the posters here that your AP scores will not be considered a substitute for SATs where the SAT is required.</p>
<p>There are plenty of school which you can get into with an 1170. try looking into the Loren Pope books, Colleges that change lives and beyond the IVY leage. As Icemaker said there are now a number of great schools which are now SAT optional, so if you have stellar grades, and the SAT is your weakness, with a great essay, ECs, and recs you can get in.</p>
<p>All the best</p>
<p>Would boston college and boston university be in that list? Im sending off my apps on monday for jan admission.. [.....prays....] </p>
<p>Are AP test suppose to be harder then SAT or the other way around.</p>
<p>BTW, I already graduated so admission officers will see my 4 ap test i took during my senior year</p>
<p>So say your verbal SAT sucks but you scored a 4 on the English AP exam (language), are they still going to consider you a bad English/humanities student?</p>
<p>heh yeah, i was wondering about that too juice. 3 of my test were AP US gov, AP european history and AP comparative gov with 50% of your score consists of essays. I got 4 and one 5 on them. I must be verbally incompetent because I don't know the sly tricks and vocab employed in the SAT? </p>
<p>I took calculus too and got a B in the class. I must be incompentent at math too.</p>
<p>Potato --</p>
<p>As to BC and BU, it appears from the list of SAT optional schools that they both require that you submit your test scores. Here is the direct link of schools where the SAT is optional:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fairtest.org/optstat.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.fairtest.org/optstat.htm</a> </p>
<p>While I am not an expert on this, most people who I have talked with say that the ACT is more fact-based and that the SAT is more theoretical. I suggest that you look at an old ACT test; take a practice test and see if you would do appreciatively better.</p>
<p>There are many fine schools where the SAT is either optional or not that large of a factor in the admission decision. Most studies that I have seen suggest that the SAT is a very poor predictor of future collegiate success and that other factors, such as grades, are much better predictors.</p>
<p>AP scores can not take the place of the SATs. I hate to sound cynical, but schools care so much about SATs because they care about rankings.</p>
<p>I have the same problem. I took the SATs for the first time, but I only got an 1100, then I took a 3 week course and got an 1120. I just took the ACTs and they were worse (horrible science section, and less time to answer questions - for example section one writing was 75 Q's in 45 mins.) Basically if you don't think at the speed of light, you won't do well on the SATs or ACTs. Many people just are not good at taking standardized tests (the pressure - of being timed, distractions, nerves, etc. cause some people to not be able to perform to their best ability.) I am living proof of this, I am a good student, I have a high GPA and a high class rank, but I can not take standardized tests. This morning while taking the ACTs I got extremely distracted by someone beside me who kept on scuffing their feet on the floor, and I couldn't read passages quickly. (This for me is a huge problem, because I read and think slowly, and meticulously anyway.) This is why my SAT scores are low. I will retake them after reading this SAT guide, and teaching myself geometry, and improving my vocabulary a bit, but I still won't do well, as I am not a good standardized test taker. These tests do not really mean anything. And some of the best colleges are realizing that and making submission of them optional. They know who will truly excel in a collegiate atmosphere for 4 years. Who would you accept - someone with a 1600 on the SATs who was lazy in high school, and had a low GPA, or someone who worked hard and did well in hs all 4 years, was in the top 10% of their class, but didn't test well? (4 years of a high school education indicates how well you will do in college far better than a 3 hour test that isn't even scored by a live human does.) </p>
<p>Anyway, I hate standardized tests, and they should be banned. I do not like it when people think that scoring highly on the SATs makes them a genius, and that they will surely be accepted anywhere. It is the intelligent people, some who do not test well, that will be accepted into the worthwhile schools (the ones that don't judge applicants on a number from a 3 hr test.)</p>
<p>Yeah, anyway. I am taking a stand against the SAT as an 1100's scorer who, behind the numbers, is intelligent, and has a lot to offer to any school.</p>
<p>~ Court</p>
<p>No matter what anyone here says, SAT score matter a lot.</p>
<p>Courtbroadway 17, I completely agree. SATs are not really indicative of college performance. In fact, the Collage Board notes that the SATs have about a .61 correlation with first year college performance, which is a bit over the odds of flipping a coin. </p>
<p>Also, I taught the SATs in a prior life. I have seen many smart kids do horribly because of the strict time limits imposed. The SATS clearly discriminate against these smart thoughtful kids.</p>
<p>Most admissions officers will privately agree with what I have said, although a few feel that the math part of the exam has a bit higher correlation than that of the verbal section. However, it is the only standardized test available. Thus, college use it as the standard in which to compare kids. It may not be fair or even right,but it is what it is.</p>
<p>As far as AP scores go, they will not overcome bad SATS period!. First, you could have had a great teachers who have coached you to do well. AP exams are very coachable with the right teachers or the right tutors and work. Likewise a smart student may not do well if their teacher was horrible in the subject. I have seen this happen as well.</p>
<p>Why do you think they matter a lot? How could a 3 hr test that only quick thinkers, who don't freak out under pressure and time constraints, be reliable enough to matter? I can see why it is important at large schools, because they need to categorize students with tens of thousands of apps, but small LACs don't need the SATs to tell if someone is intelligent or not. Some of the most intelligent people that I know, who are incredibly smart in all disciplines, had SAT scores that weren't any higher than 1200. Some of the most intelligent people, are slow, and meticulous thinkers, who analyze things completely, rather than rapidly. This is why people who are extremely intelligent don't do well on standardized tests. There are some who do, but often it is the more systemic people who answer questions in a "factory" manner, guessing and recognizing other people's ideas through multiple choice questions, without ever actually analyzing them. The people who do well on the SATs can recognize the correct answer from the 5 choices given, but does this mean that they are inquisitive, and ask themselves what the correct answer means, and why it is correct? This is called analysis, and it is an accurate tool for measuring intelligence, and it is not included on the SATs. If you want to measure someone's intelligence, you want to know their own ideas and thoughts about things, standardized tests suppress these thoughts. True intelligence can not be measured systematically or with a computer, so SATs do not matter in showing a person's intelligence. They only show how well you work under unusually intense pressure, and how well you guess. The SATs are not a test of intelligence, they are a game. If you get an 1100 on the SATs you may be brilliant but not play the "game" well, and if you get a 1600 you may just play the game well. Understanding and being able to recognize other people's ideas on the SATs does not indicate true intelligence. Being able to analyze the world around you and being able to make it all mean something to you, is what makes you intelligent and interesting.</p>
<p>The SATs are so oppressive of letting true intelligence, and individual ideas shine through. This is why, in the long run, they really don't matter. And do you really want to go to a school that uses the SATs to judge intelligence? They will likely keep on teaching you to memorize and spit back out others' ideas by circling a, b, c, d or e on test forms. If you go somewhere where the SATs do not matter, as they don't in real life, you will likely be taught how to use your creativity to further develop your own ideas, which is really what you will be doing after you graduate from college.</p>
<p>So the SATs don't really matter in the real world, and if a college rejects an extremely bright person, with a great capacity to learn and to develop ideas, due to lower than average SAT scores, they don't deserve to have them as an applicant. Those who place great emphasis on what really doesn't matter (the SATs) will not prepare a person for the real world, and truly stimulate the mind. </p>
<p>I am not trying to offend people who do test well on the SATs. I am sure many of them are also extremely intelligent, and are lucky enough to test well on standardized, rather meaningless tests. I am just trying to let people know that SATs are irrelevent to a person's intellect, and ability to come up with their own ideas in the real world (outside of school.)</p>
<p>Thank you for listening (well reading this), and respecting my ideas. I would love to hear about others opinions about the SATs, and why they believe that they truly are important?</p>
<p>~ Court</p>
<p>Editted: Yes, math scores are a bit more indicative than verbal scores of how well a person has mastered a subject. However, a person's ability to be taught and understand math is not tested through the SATs.</p>
<p>I myself got a 500 on the math section, because I work through math problems slowly. I do understand many of them, I am merely incapable of finding the correct answer quickly. I also know that I am not a "math" person, the SATs do show this, but they fail to show what I do actually know about math. (Often my answers are almost correct, but not the best choice - the computers don't care if you were close, to them wrong is wrong, regardless of how close you were to accuracy.) This is why even math aptitude can not really be measured by the SATs. This is why no aptitude can be measured by the SATs. What does your teacher do when you get the incorrect answer on the test, but you were one step away from the answer? You receive partial credit for your almost correct answer. The SATs penalize the same for each wrong answer, regardless of how close you were to answering a question correctly. Because there is no partial credit on the SATs an extremely intelligent person could have received a low score, because they got the last 5 (hardest) questions of each section wrong. They may have deserved a 1500 though for picking the next best answer on those most difficult questions. This is why your academic profile is much more significant than SAT scores, and also more reliable in showing intelligence and "scholarly aptitude", because everything is not black in white. It is not an A or an F, there are also B's, and D's. </p>
<p>Say you took a math test and you answered half the questions almost correctly, but you missed one tiny step on each. (If there was partial credit you may have recieved a B on that test), but without partial credit you receive an F like the person next to you, who really did have no clue what they were doing, and didn't even give answers. </p>
<p>Aptitude can not be measured by the SATs because they are so black and white. They support the "wrong is wrong" philosophy, and penalize rather than give credit to people who are wrong, but almost right.</p>
<p>My opinion is from someone taught in a different system. I have never before been faced with an exam that was designed to catch you out or trick you into giving a wrong answer. I didn't feel that the SAT tested what you had learned, what you knew, or how you applied what you knew, just placed you under time pressure to figure out the trick questions. I know kids who have taken SATs 10 times! And those with the money for a SAT prep class or private SAT tutor have a real advantage. I wonder if schools have ways of knowing income levels to assess if someone has had all the advantages?</p>
<p>I agree with you court, but unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think, as many of the elite schools take the SAT's word as "god" (i.e. duke Yale etc). I also sympathize with you. I took calculus as a junior and got a B in the class. I took the SAT and got 560 on the math! Like yourself, I tend to think slowly, methodically and analytically not quickly and carelessly. I plan on Re-taking the SAT even though I already graduated for personal reason</p>
<p>If you are having problems on the SAT, I recommend the Princeton Review. My score jumped up significantly in practice test after reading that book. It gives you quick tips on answering questions quickly, statistics of the types of questions asked as well as detailed examples. Some of the tips are using your paper as a ruler and guesstimating, choosing the biggest words in the final 3 analogies etc. </p>
<p>Its a stupid test, but still very important. I think it can be perfected with the write techniques and skills, but I in my opinion, a total waste of time and s. effort.</p>