<p>I got to a fairly tough school and my grades are pretty good except for english. I have a b in english and poorly on some the reading assignments yet I get a fairly high scores in the reading and especially writing sections (720, 750 respectively) than the kids who get A’s. Same deal in math. Minus 1 or 2 everytime but I still get low A’s in precalc. Puzzles me.</p>
<p>Tests in schools are primarily achievement tests while the SAT is more of an aptitude test.</p>
<p>True, but if I have a 145+ IQ and get straight A’s in English, math, etc easily, wouldnt you think I could get above a 650 on all the sections…?</p>
<p>Did you actually take an iq test from a psychiatrist or this some online one (rarely accurate). Sat requires some logical skills and test taking ability. It doesnt measure much because you can improve your score by a couple hundred points. Also iq and set dont always corrolate. There are some kids who can barely read but score well on iq tests because they measure other things as well.</p>
<p>Its just that they should change school so it becomes like that instead.</p>
<p>The SAT is far from an aptitude test.</p>
<p>Stop fishing for compliments.</p>
<p>It doesn’t puzzle you. You feel that the “kids who get the A’s” are just try-hards and that their cognitive aptitude is inferior to yours, which you feel your test scores clearly show.</p>
<p>The only way to guarantee a high SAT score is to prepare for the SAT. Someone with a higher IQ, good work ethic and good grades in school will most likely get a higher SAT score than someone without these traits IF neither of them prepare for the SAT. But learning and practicing strategies specific to the SAT is the only way to maximize your SAT score.</p>
<p>On the other side of things, some people just have a natural talent for standardized tests. This skill is roughly independent of tests given in a school setting.</p>
<p>I guess your right but I dont believe they are inferior. Its just that what they learn in school doesn’t translate to the sat. I have noticed some who do well on shakespeare lit but still struggle. Is the sat actually testing reading skills?</p>
<p>
Where did you get this information? Because you think it is so?
There is a world of difference between a test for school, where you can cram the night before the test and still ace it, and the SAT, which requires knowledge obtained over a lifetime.</p>
<p>Because you can train for it. If it was a true aptitude test, then it would require no previous knowledge, whereas 80+% of the SAT is Vocab, Math Concepts, and Grammar Rules, all of which one can master within a few months if he/she really tries.</p>
<p>ANY test can be trained for. That’s why I said it’s more of an aptitude test, not it is a 100% pure aptitude test. No such thing is possible (you have to be able to understand some sort of language in the first place). Have you ever wondered why real intelligence tests (like the WAIS) are closely guarded and that it’s incredible difficult to get practice questions that are remotely accurate?</p>
<p>Do you honestly think people learn the material tested on the SAT by drilling for a few months? Our concepts of language, grammar, etc are learned gradually thoughout our lifetimes unconsciously and effortlessly; only a small fraction is through “drill and kill.”</p>
<p>Anyways, the average score increase of people who trained for the SAT is something around 30 points.</p>
<p>It all depends. Maybe they’re just bad at taking standardized tests or maybe they just have easy teachers. This is the same case in my school. Some students have very high averages but are really “dumb”. They have a superficial knowledge of things and remember things only for a test. Most of them just cheat while the others are just good at rote memorization for school tests.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m all for standardized tests. I live in New York and I’ve attended both a “regular” high school and a “specialized” high school. The differences between the quality of education are enormous. I put no effort at the “regular” school and got a 4.0 GPA; now I put 2-3x the effort at the “specialized” school and have a 3.0 GPA. Standardized tests help distinguish disparities and differentiates the students. For the record, my SAT grade (M+CR+W) is about 600 points higher than the SAT average at the “regular school”, while it is only about 200 points higher than the SAT average at the “specialized” school. However, most of them carry 4.0 GPAs while I don’t :(</p>
<p>Sorry if I rambled.</p>
<p>Yeah thats one of their main purposes, to seperate the real from the phony. Then again, their are many valuable skills that are not test the test that are useful in real life. So the test isnt perfect.</p>
<p>it’s not hard to get a 4.0 in highschool, it’s just not. getting A’s in highschool for the most part requires having a pulse and paying attention. it’s also not hard to get good scores on AP exams. name any AP exam besides a language exam and I could study it in one week and get at least a 4
the SAT requires a certain degree of intelligence and problem solving. a strong SAT score separates the glut of 4.0 kids in highschool from the ones who are capable of succeeding at a top university.</p>
<p>Mmm, maybe they don’t correlate because some of us just can’t bring ourselves to apply ourselves in classes which we don’t care about, but are naturally intelligent, and thus do well on the SAT. Bit of a personal anecdote/rant. My teacher was talking about her favorite students, and she said I was one of the very few true intellectuals she’s taught, and minutes later gave me back my math test-- a 40%. Maybe classes are just hard for some, or maybe it’s just that some people don’t apply themselves in class… Either way though, now you see why the SAT exists. My GPA is currently awful because I just cannot force myself to do work above a minimal level in classes which I don’t care at all about… I mean, when is a civil rights lawyer going to need to find the area of a circle? When is a criminal defense attorney going to need to know how to construct polyatomic compounds? When is a privacy-law attorney goin to need to know about matrices? Umm, never, in the real world… So my GPA is awful because I just CAN’T apply myself, but on SAT practice tests, I usually make about a 720 CR, 750 W, and 650 M. That’s my story, but it’s not one-size-fits-all.</p>
<p>From my observations, people who learn stuff just to pass a test will do far worse than the people who learn it to gain an advancement of knowledge. I have to admit, for myself, depending on the class and my interest in it - I have done both. This has really hindered me to the point where I’m basically reviewing a quarter of my high school schoolwork this final year before I go to college because I didn’t think it was important and have now realized just how important it is. For example, I have a friend who is a very good student. If she didn’t understand something in a class, even if she didn’t enjoy it, she would study it anyway until she was able to receive the grade she wished for. She is second or third in my class I believe. She scored decently on the SAT, but not amazingly. I think it is mostly due to the way she has approached high school. She’d learn a topic for a test only, and not to gain knowledge. My school barely has any form of cumulative testing, so once the test was finished and graded only the important stuff persisted in her memory. I have another friend however, who is a good student, but far more interested in gaining knowledge of certain subjects than gaining a good grade. He in comparison is 6th or 7th in my class. He has fantastic scores on the SAT, and barely prepared for it. I think to summarize, being a good student doesn’t necessarily mean that you are a good learner. It just means that you care about grades more. </p>
<p>Relative to the two friends of mine, I have less-than-great grades, (but I’m still in the top 10% of my class) mostly because I took a more difficult course-load that required a lot of studying, and I have trouble truly gaining a detailed knowledge of something without being interested in it. So the less interesting classes proved to be low 90s instead of the consistent high 90s my peers would achieve. Unfortunately, I go to a small school where class options and challenges aren’t really a goal for our administration. So the top of the class are stuck learning with people at the bottom. The school is more worried about the lowest common denominator kids passing our state’s funding test rather than actually preparing us for anything.</p>
<p>Another thing that I believe hinders a lot of the top students is the idea of a limited time to complete such an extensive test without any considerable breaks or gathering of knowledge. If it weren’t for timing, I could probably guarantee that the majority of my test would be correct, and I’d score top 700s. It is the people who are able to come to a conclusion quickly with short-cuts, rather than those who analyze something for all possible choices and check their answers who achieve a score to their best ability. So I think the inherent differences in our ability to gain knowledge also plays a significant role. I wouldn’t really call this intelligence though. Sometimes the person who is slow and careful is far more important to a task in the real world than somebody who is quick and sometimes messy. Or even further, sometimes having multiple understandings on a topic is far more useful than only having one short-cut understanding. </p>
<p>Basically, while the SAT is a good measurement of whether or not your school inflates grades, I think it is far too specific of a test to really be suitable for all students and some are required to prepare for it. Furthermore, being a good student doesn’t always mean you are a good learner who can apply that knowledge thoroughly without the guidance of an instructor who provides you with a means of memorization.</p>
<p>I believe there are three types of people who score well on the SAT. Those who have a lpassion for the subjects tested, and due to this have a considerable grasp of the content without studying. Those who prepare by knowing the inside and outside of the test. Finally, those who both have extensive knowledge and refine this knowledge with preparation by knowing the specific details of the test.</p>
<p>I have to say that my SAT scores aren’t amazing, but are good. In comparison, I’m extremely excited for the Math II and Biology subject tests I will be taking next month because they measure the knowledge I have gained out of interest in the subjects rather than my ability to apply more basic concepts with a perception of the small mistakes. Or at least this is far less pronounced than the SAT seems to be.</p>
<p>Sorry for my wall, but as you may notice, I think of this often and my ideas are very refined.</p>
<p>At my HS, Test scores/grades have no correlation what so ever.</p>
<p>We took our first official practice ACT and our rank 1 got a 22. >.<</p>
<p>The highest in our school was ~29-30? and it wasn’t one of the scholars. </p>
<p>I got a 27 and i’m rank 10.</p>
<p>I agree with you alot, especially the part about time. We get we learn something new and get tested on it just as fast. It takes time to process everything so that you actually know the material. I have noticed that after one week of learning the material in increments, it really starts to skin in you for a long time to come. Sadly the test comes much earlier and cramming is the only option for most.</p>