Why is the SAT the most targeted?

Test Preparation
1

<p>It’s clear that the SAT is the most controversial part of the application process. It is called biased, unfair, and countless other claims, and almost all of them are based on fact. It’s hard to deny that there are people that have the advantage on the SAT. Higher-income families simply have the resources needed to train for such a test.</p>

<p>But why is the SAT alone the target of these claims? Higher-income families perform better in school and have higher GPAs as well, and GPA isn’t even standardized. The SAT seems at first glance to be far more fair. The same people will perform at a higher level, but at least they can be compared to people of other schools. A student at a school with an A of 94% or better might get straight B+'s and end up with a 3.5 GPA. At a school where an A is 90%, that’s a 4.0. If the classes are easier, it makes sense, but that’s impossible to judge. Sure, school profiles can help colleges decipher these numbers, but they’re still nowhere near as standardized as the SAT. Heck, the SAT is a “standardized test.” The same students that perform higher on the SAT because they are better off are going to perform better in school too (and probably go to a better school in the first place). </p>

<p>Furthermore, the SAT is the only part of the application that can be considered truly the work of the student, and only the student. Students can certainly get help before the test, but not during. But at school, kids can easily get help on their homework, which can be reflected on their GPA. A student with an intelligent brother or mother could perform better in school without being smarter simply by getting help. The same goes with essays and projects that are huge factors in grades, and therefore the GPA as well. A final project is often worth as much as a 1/5 of the total grade for the class. It’s easy, and rarely even against the rules, to get substantial help on these projects. How is that a better indicator than the SAT?</p>

<p>Essays too have this same problem. In theory, they give colleges an example of prepared writing. But with unlimited time, you also get unlimited help. One can begin by writing their own essay, and end up with it being edited by so many people that the only similarity between the original and the final is the topic. How is that more fair than the SAT, where the student and the student alone must work out the answers?</p>

<p>Extra-curriculars too, to me at least, seem more flawed than the SAT. Some schools offer more opportunities than others. Again, the family income level comes into account (it seems to in all aspects of the application, even for financial aid consideration, but it seems to be frequently singled out as a problem for the SAT). Being president of your school’s branch of the National Honor Society may be a great achievement, but the fact is kids aren’t going to vote for you if they’re close to another candidate. Sure, there are a few kids that base their decision on merit, but by no means a majority. A lot of great extra-curriculars can be achieved through popularity. I’ve even heard (on public radio, I believe) of a student who co-founded the Aztec club at his school. What did the Aztec club do? They met every couple of weeks to eat pizza. But at least his college application says “Founded the Aztec Club.” Sounds great. But it’s not. </p>

<p>Recommendations too are flawed and unstandardized. You may have a great teacher whose class you were fantastic in, but suppose this teacher doesn’t have great writing skills. Another teacher in another school may be fantastically poetic and make a so-so student seem incredible. </p>

<p>People make the claim that the SAT is not a good indicator of success in college, but that’s not what it’s for. It’s just a test to give colleges an idea of the math and English ability of their applicants. I don’t have any on hand, but I’m sure people that know where they are can post the studies about success in college. It seems pretty clear that there is no way to gauge college success. It’s just not predictable. </p>

<p>Really to sum up, what I’m trying to say is that the SAT has it’s problems, and it is unfair, but it is still the fairest part of the college application. So why is the SAT the target of so much controversy?</p>

2

<p>I so strongly agree with you. In my opinion, people only target the SAT because they dont do well on it and emphasize “I’m not a good test taker” even if it is true.</p>

3

<p>“But why is the SAT alone the target of these claims? Higher-income families perform better in school and have higher GPAs as well, and GPA isn’t even standardized. The SAT seems at first glance to be far more fair. The same people will perform at a higher level, but at least they can be compared to people of other schools. A student at a school with an A of 94% or better might get straight B+'s and end up with a 3.5 GPA. At a school where an A is 90%, that’s a 4.0. If the classes are easier, it makes sense, but that’s impossible to judge. Sure, school profiles can help colleges decipher these numbers, but they’re still nowhere near as standardized as the SAT. Heck, the SAT is a “standardized test.” The same students that perform higher on the SAT because they are better off are going to perform better in school too (and probably go to a better school in the first place).”</p>

<p>Especially strongly agreed. Couldnt have set it better myself</p>

4

<p>Extracurriculars are truly a $hitty way to measure people. Student government is a total popularity contest at our school. The senior class president was known for his well-stocked parties, good nature, and the fact that he cheated his way through high school and into UPenn. His SATs were the only things he truly earned. GPA is skewed too…some schools are just more competitive than others.</p>

5

<p>Damn straight. I think SATs should count for more since in the end, the SATs is the ONLY objective part of your application.</p>

6

<p>I was swiped of my rightly deserved NHS presidency because my opponent had larger breasts than me.</p>

7

<p>the SAT should not have more weight, but it should be a very important factor, because there is also a flipside. How can three hours on a saturday morning define you as a student, a learner, an achiever, or a person?</p>

8

<p>3 hours can definitely measure your quick on-your-feet thinking. Despite the fact that the test can be prepared for, the questions and subject material (for the reading passages) differs for each test. Any kid who knows how to be an efficient test taker under time constraints shows a type of ability needed in this world: using the word above, efficiency. We’re always trying to get more and more efficient. The 2400s and 2300s show great efficiency in reasoning skills and breaking a question down as well as being able to analyze a situation.</p>

<p>That said, an interest in learning can only be measured by doing more academic ECs (math, science, or overall academic team). The kids from lower socioeconomic levels, despite their inherent disadvantages can at least show colleges they did more than was normally possible for a person of their origins to accomplish; that alone should be a strong determinant in their perserverance.</p>

<p>No one here mentioned two critical parts to a college application: interview and essays. These are two ways to show your well rounded side as well as discuss the difficulty you might have had that you overcame.</p>

<p>In conclusion, my vote of confidence for the SAT = “Ja”</p>

9

<p>Some feel sat, and all standardized tests are not completely unbiased. I remember a news story a few yrs ago about a question removed from a test. It was something like this “A man has $35000 to buy a yacht. If a yacht sells only in ten foot lengths for $10,000 each, how long of a yacht could he purchase.?” This question was removed on the grounds that blacks haven’t the economic power of whites, can’t afford yachts, and so this was an unfair question.</p>

<p>Agree or disagree with reasoning there, but I bring it up to show not all feel its a fair test. Personally, I believe it is a reasonable factor for school to consider. Remember they have to select students based on something besides breast size! [reference to earlier posting from xbones]</p>

10

<p>By the way, the reason I wasn’t an officer for the NJHS (junior honors society) was because of one sole reason: I missed the meeting lol.</p>

11

<p>The reason i wasn’t an officer for NHS was that the other people were more qualified than me.</p>

<p>Stop whining.</p>

12

<p>I think interview is much more important than SAT.</p>

13

<p>sully why are you needlessly starting beef? I wouldn’t inflate my head to lie about something trivial about a middle school version of the honors society, so who cares either way? How do you get I’m whining from an “lol” anyway? </p>

<p>Besides, those officers all moved to different private high schools…I don’t know what I’m doing at my current school, but it’s too late to change schools now.</p>

14

<p>I believe that the SAT is not as useful as some of the people in this thread are making it seem. Sure, it is subjective, but only towards test taking skills. What is going to measure how HARD our students work…maybe they get a so-so grade on the SAT…colleges may directly think of Grade Inflation…maybe that person is just not a great test taker. They may be extremely intelligent, but need time to think questions over, and check their answers. In real life, people get more time than twenty five minutes to do twenty math problems…newspaper editors get more than thirty minutes to read sentences, (not to mention they dont have to look for an answer and bubble in a little dot). All I’m saying is the SAT should only be used to judge students to a certain point…and I don’t believe it should be part of the admissions process.</p>

15

<p>I think the SAT is fine, I don’t really believe it is biased either, and we definitly need it in the admissions process. I’m sure its been said its the only standard measure of basic skills (math, reading, etc.) that colleges have. If they didn’t have it, for example, schools could just inflate an athletes grades, and he wouldn’t have to worry at ALL about academics, now, at, least they have to study for the SAT. I don’t think the interview should count for more because that is COMPLETELY subjective and not all people have developed the social skills needed to leave a great impression.</p>

16

<p>See, i dont think beggars can be choosers… i mean until another better method is invented/discovered for evaluaing all candidates on a standardised platform the SAT or the ACT for that matter will be forved on us, whether we like it or not…</p>