<p>These tests should be a test of how much you know, and should not be predictable. By studying everyone knows what’s going to be on the test and people end up answering by using stupid tricks they learned from tutors. Good for all of you that take advantage of this, but I really think that they should be knowledge tests and not tests which you can find patterns</p>
<p>… yeah… how about no studying in school either? just what you know from class and not home…</p>
<p>You have suggested a terrible idea.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I feel like there’s a large difference. We study in school because they tell us new information and we have to refresh ourselves. For the standardized tests it tests how much you already know–there is no new information to go over. You don’t see anyone studying for those no child left behind tests, do ya?</p>
<p>I kind of and kind of do not disagree with you (that was an awkward sentence).</p>
<p>Why I agree:
Some people cannot afford tutors and classes; therefore, the test becomes a bit elitist.
People can “refresh” by their own selves (awkward sentence again…or is it only me who thinks my awkward sentences are awkward).</p>
<p>Why I don’t:
There is no “new” information, but there is information that was “sloppified” (I’m creating this word now - sloppy, but in verb form) or “forgotten”.(especially in the “text” world where grammar is becoming more sloppy).
Also, better SAT equals better college/university, so why not increase your chances in the survival of the fittest world.</p>
<p>I am mostly against standardized testing as a whole, because it is a pretty crucial part of the college application process, yet it is a result of five hours in one day while GPA is a result of working your a$$ off for 3 years. Personally I think colleges should only look at GPA, rigor of schedule, and essays, but I know that will never happen. Better call up Kaplan…</p>
<p>Preparing over 10 years is no different than someone who studies at the last moment by buying preparation books/tutors if said individuals score the same on either the SAT or ACT.</p>
<p>GPA is not as heavily relied upon because of the lack of a standard (4.0 means differently between classes and schools), but is probably a better indicator of college success.</p>
<p>I took SAT classes and I can tell you one thing: the tutors barely helped; they’re only useful for grading essays. The two most important factors that contributed to my increased scores are:</p>
<p>1) information presented on paper (especially for grammar)
2) practice tests</p>
<p>Both can be obtained by buying review books for less than $100 (if you can’t even afford that then you have bigger issues to worry about).</p>
<p>I want to retake the test, but most likely I won’t go take classes again. I’m just going to buy a bunch of practice tests.</p>
<p>As for only referring to GPA, I have several objections. First, it is not a strong indicator of intelligence (diligence alone simply cannot define a student’s abilities holistically). That alone creates a plethora of problems for college admissions. Second, for people who weren’t motivated to do well in the first years of high school, but soon regrets, they basically have no chance. </p>
<p>Judging only based on GPA creates its own realm of unfairness.</p>
<p>Actually i sort of agree with this, the SAT was created to be an intelligence test on how well a student would fare in college, because gpa cant be the only indicator. Thats why collegeboard tries to claim you cant ‘study’ for the SAT. But yeah, everyone does it, so you should too or else you’ll be at a huge comparative disadvantage.</p>
<p>I agree with this… I did not practice for the first SAT I took (not at all, unless if you count taking the PSAT), and haven’t started practicing for the May SAT. I hate hearing about kids who have private tutors or have been constantly practicing for the SAT for the past year(s). Go out and get a life! lol</p>
<p>I’ll say this, there are no “intelligence” tests where you can’t prepare for it.</p>
<p>Preparing only means that you are achieving at your full potential, and therefore, if you do not practice/study, you are at fault for not reaching your max.</p>
<p>I’ll say this again - buying a review book and practice tests (cost very little) is a lot more effective than attending a class. Seriously, the only benefit of attending a class is that your essays can be graded. I don’t think that factor alone can make any noticeable difference in test scores. The key to SAT success is PRACTICE, not listening to lectures.</p>
<p>Seconding ryanxing’s post</p>
<p>SAT is one of the most predictable indicators of success at the college level. GPA and class rank are not because of the variablity of the classes and the schools. There is a reason they call it “Standardized.” It is something they can compare everyone against.</p>
<p>I didn’t study at all for the SAT and I got a 2300. If no one else studied, then my score would look a lot more impressive. Sadly, people study.</p>
<p>only it’s impossible to make it illegal…</p>