Abolish the SAT - article explains that SAT I measures nothing SAT IIs can measure

Applying to College
21

<p>Seriously, you think a college wants to waste time making its own admission test? I don't want to have to take 5 different tests when more or less, they're all going to give me the same score.</p>

<p>To end this topic: the SAT is a necessary evil to counter grade inflation. Like it or not, colleges need fast, analytical thinkers. You can cry all about "But it takes me longer than others to solve a problem", but colleges wills itll desire those with quick smarts.</p>

<p>If I had to choose between somebody with an upward trend GPA of 3.65 (2200 SAT) and somebody with a 4.0 (2050 SAT), I'd choose the former. Based on these numbers alone, what can I tell from these students? One can adapt and analyze faster than the other and probably was unmotivated int eh beginning of high school.</p>

<p>If I choose the 4.0, then I'm more likely to end up with a "sponge", somebody who studies 24/7 to memorize as much as possible but ends up drying out and losing all knowledge. </p>

<p>The 3.65 will probably not absorb as much info as the sponge, but he will be able to maintain a better college GPA because college is not only about memorizing like high school. It is about thinking critically. Nobody has the time to memorize for every single class of theirs.</p>

<p>Of course, these are all typical cases. There will be cases of a sponge doing better than the 3.65 but not most of the time.</p>

22

<p>It all comes down to whether or not you believe that something has to be done about the SAT, plain and simple. I was merely suggesting one possible escape from what is becoming an even worse situation with college admissions. I understand the need for a standardized test and I completely agree with it, however to say that the SAT exists and will always exist simply because it is necessary is preposterous. The SAT isn't the only way colleges can standardize the credentials of their applicants. </p>

<p>I am not going to state my entire case supporting individual admissions tests, primarily because I am sure that others have already done so, probably much more aptly than I would be able to at the moment. However, I do believe that it is a solution to the ever growing problems that surround admissions. I don't believe we will have to wait too much longer for a drastic change in the admissions process and I for one am anxious to see it come.</p>

23

<p>Its also based on the assumption that intelligence is 100% inherited. Its not, its largely genetic, but like height, diet can change it (believe it or not, people have been getting taller and taller throughout history). </p>

<p>IQ != Innate Ability</p>

<p>Because for humans, there really is no such thing. </p>

<p>The SAT is not a 100% IQ test, it also tests specific intelligences, but it does correlate very highly with general intelligences. </p>

<p>On the point of alternatives, I think its best for students just to have one test. It would be such a pain to have to take 10 different tests - one for each school. </p>

<p>And that would give a HUGE advantage to the rich, who could have the time and resources to study for the most obscure tests. </p>

<p>Whilst many SAT prep resources can be found for free...</p>

24

<p>I would still support the SAT - its too big of a chance to get rid of it and it would completely screw up college admissions. </p>

<p>There is no test that can satisfy everyone or be completely fair. Obviously the SAT is unfair, but its pretty good compared to what else could exist, even though I personally like the ACT better.</p>

25

<p>And if every college made its own admissions test, that would be the end of the world - overwork-death for everyone</p>

26

<p>I dont think SAT can determine how well someone does in college though. I have some kids in my high school class that have scored 2300 on their SAT, but they're failing in too many classes because they have poor work ethic. To be successful in anything, you have to have spirit and determination. A test can't prove that.</p>

27

<p>and How do you measure something like spirit? also, I would rather have the SAT be one of the main standards for admissions rather than something like "what is your passion" or some other type of bs. who cares if someone likes learning or not? you have to look at the bottom line. I know kids who love learning, but just aren't smart enough while others gets better grades by just sliding by. also, I would take the 4.0 (2050) over the 3.65 (2200), assuming that they are from the same school. why? because the former demonstrate superior performance over a 4 year-stretch of time. the latter shows superior performance for 1 day. </p>

<p>Ultimately, I think that all of this required stuff for admissions such as essays, ec's, interviews, and other things is just a way to keep certain qualified candidates out b/c they're considered bookworms. Well, what is the purpose of college? academics. not community service, passion or anything else.</p>

28

<p>"also, I would take the 4.0 (2050) over the 3.65 (2200), assuming that they are from the same school. why? because the former demonstrate superior performance over a 4 year-stretch of time. the latter shows superior performance for 1 day."</p>

<p>^ Agreed. The Four years is what I meant by determination. That shows consistency. By the way, instead of 1 day, lets say 2 hours and 45 minutes. Or.. whatever the time was.. I forgot.</p>

29

<p>Epiphany's post above raises a lot of good points. I do agree that the SAT, by itself, is not the best predictor of a student's performance in college.</p>

<p>However, I think we need refrain from criticizing the test in and of itself and instead analyze the SAT's role in the broader context of college admissions. After all, the SAT is one of the many factors that can result in an applicant's acceptance or rejection; admissions is not based solely on the test.</p>

<p>From this perspective, the SAT, despite all its flaws, is absolutely necessary. It predicts an innate ability that is perhaps not essential -- but important -- to an individual's potential to succeed in society. GPA and achievement tests by and large do not accurately reflect this innate ability. First, GPA can vary from school to school -- a 4.0 at By-The-By High School is indisputably different from a 4.0 at Phillips Andover. Second, achievement tests reflect the extent of one's training in a subject, training that varies from school to school. Although the SAT is indeed a test for which one can be trained, training does not necessarily enhance one's innate ability. Sure, one might argue that an improvement from 1500 to 1900 is a perfect example of why the SAT is useless as an aptitude test. I, however, say that this is a perfect example of why the SAT is a useful test: after all, do you think that now that the previously 1500-student is comfortable with the format of the test, the 1900 is likely to increase much more?</p>

<p>The SAT is a baseline from which college admissions officers can draw conclusions -- if even that -- about a student's potential limits in academia. It is not designed to judge their talents in other fields. Hence the reason college admissions is based on the transcript, extracurriculars, and intangible personal qualities. </p>

<p>Murray's article sheds some light on why colleges shouldn't admit a student based on wholly their SAT, not why it shouldn't be used as a single factor among many that result in a final admit/reject decision.</p>

<p>Finally, how many schools actually require prospective students to score in the range we see on CC? Not many. Murray is creating the illusion that American students are grubbing for placement in SAT classes and melting under a psychotic pressure that the test supposedly creates. To my knowledge, this is not true. Most of my classmates talk about the SAT/ACT in passing, but are never truly worried about it. The ones that do worry take the time to study and do well. Gernally well -- not stellar -- but well enough to get into at least the college of their choice. There needs to be an emphasis that high SATs and even the taking of SAT IIs are isolated cases, restricted to about 15-20%, at most, of the American high school population.</p>

30

<p>as a good strandardized tester, i love the SATs. i think they're useful in the college search process to see how well you line up with a school, with GPAs varying so much from school to school.
i guess no one complains if they did well on them though</p>

31

<p>This is interesting.</p>

32

<p>I feel I did well on mine (1380/1600) with no class and some light studying from a study guide and I still feel that something has to be done maybe not immediately, but definitely for the next generation of college students.</p>

33

<p>IMHO, those who support abolishing the SAT are those who don't test well and bomb.</p>

34

<p>"Unfortunately grading standards between high schools are dramatically different, necessitating a nation-wide test. Moreover, homeschooled students need tests to prove their abilities. We can also extend the testing to testing for more complex subjects like linear algebra and multivariable calculus, which would further increase the motivation for students to study those subjects on their own."</p>

<p>True, I agree. But my point still stands: the SAT can't judge work ethic. Work ethic + intelligence = good grades. But IMO, work ethic is more important. How well one does as a college freshman is based mainly on how hard they are willing to work.</p>

<p>"Moreover, many people don't need projects or homework to learn the material. Some people can learn the material just as well without them. And school projects aren't always conducive to learning. Some projects are designed in a way that waste loads of a student's time. And obviously one is slowed down when one has incompetent classmates."</p>

<p>It's true that projects, homework, etc aren't always the most efficient way to learn. But that's beside the point. HS grades (or more accurately, class rank) are probably 80-90% based on how well you complete busywork--your work ethic. IMO, class rank and freshman grades would correlate more strongly than SAT score and freshman grades.</p>

35

<p>Prostudent, as I said before, I am extremely happy with my score and it puts me in the top 25% of students at my #1 college choice. However, I still believe the test has to go at one point, or be changed drastically. To say that the only people who think the test should be abolished are those who "bomb" it is exaggerated and pretty ignorant of a lot of other motives.</p>

36

<p>"Work ethic + intelligence = good grades. But IMO, work ethic is more important."</p>

<p>Hmm...</p>

<p>One flaw that I find in numerical grading and GPA, at least at my school, is that it is based almost ENTIRELY on work ethic. A student who can cram information before a test, or make notecards on textbook reading may have work ethic, but they are not learning for the sake of learning; they make the grade, and that's it. The structure of learning within a school environment is not conducive to the success of the student who can't learn out of a text book, or off of a worksheet. I think it's safe to say that if ANY kid, intelligent or not, took the time to sit down and complete all of their busywork, they would do well in school. However, those kids who think outside of the box, or who would rather pursue more creative interests than sit at home all night studying are penalized in the grading system. And that's unfortunate, because it's not a true reflection of their aptitude or how much they deserve to be at a certain college.</p>

<p>I've found that many of my peers who stay up all night to do their homework and consequently are at the top of the class, often end up with SAT scores lower than they anticipated. They wonder why the vocabulary section was "so hard" after they had memorized that TestMasters list of 2 million words, but don't consider that maybe it was because they'd never bothered to read anything outside of what was required for English class.</p>

37

<p>The whole game of college admission though is just realpolitik. It doesn't matter if what the colleges want is good or bad or unfair or fair or racist or discrimatory or w/e - they control the students future, and all the students can do is try to give them what they want or they don't get accepted. </p>

<p>=(</p>

38

<p>Lets abolish the LSAT, MCAT, and GRE while we're at it. Maybe the written portion of the driving test too ... hmm.</p>

39

<p>GPA WOULD be fair if every school in the US has similar environments (not race-wise, because the racial makeup or the school is gonna be different in california from wyoming), similar teachers that grade a similar way</p>

<p>pretty much every school in our area has inflated grades (at one school kids who got D's in ap physics received A's and F's had b's) except ours, not to mention we have worse teachers than everyone else (our neighborhood is average, but we're the second lowest paid school in california next to compton HS..i mean cmon...even east LA is paid higher than us)</p>

40

<p>lets abolish school as well ^_^</p>