<p>Hmm someone needs to think outside the box :p</p>
<p>What about just using the SAT II as the standardized test for college admissions. Since they show how well a student learned a specific subject. Each applicant would take Math I or II, Literature, and another one of their choice.</p>
<p>Why don't we just use a straight IQ test?! Now THAT would be exciting!</p>
<p>^ that would be interesting...but anywho....</p>
<p>i believe that the SAT doesn't measure intelligence at all. of course, someone smart will score well, but not always. also, someone w/ an average IQ could also score 2200+. however, these are only exceptions. </p>
<p>consider this: IQ is a lot of times refered to as someone's INNATE ability/intelligence. The SAT, however, can be taught. Someone who raises their SAT score 300 pts. in 2 months did not actually raise their IQ (which is innate- something your born w/), they simply learned how to take the SAT.</p>
<p>i do believe (to some extent) that the SAT measures how much you've been educated. which is why the correlation b/w school quality and SAT scores exist. however, this statement is also flawed b/c of people from poor schools who do well. but again, this is only an exception.</p>
<p>prostudent: I scored in the 99+ percentile on my SAT. Apparently that's bombing, because I think the SAT should be done away with. I hate people that just think low scorers are against the SAT. I believe it's an unfair test, and that has nothing to do with how I scored.</p>
<p>@koolmaria</p>
<p>That makes no sense. Here's why:</p>
<p>Math I and II are extremely similar to the math on the SAT. How would this substitution change anything?</p>
<p>Literature is just a slightly harder version of the SAT critical reading. How would this change anything?</p>
<p>Like it or not, colleges don't want kids who study 24/7 and get A's. They want kids who study a normal amount or less, get A's, and do other things.</p>
<p>That is why in my previous example, the person with the higher SAT should be preferred to the other student. The SAT is the same test for everybody, but GPA is not. As such, we should not put great weight on a biased statistic (GPA). If I went to an inner-city school, I would get a 4.0 in all likelihood, but since I'm at a top 100 school, I don't have a 4.0</p>
<p>A 3.65 upward trend with 2200 shows that the person has well-honed analytical skills and will not be overwhelmed by the college courseload. A 4.0 with a 2050 shows the person has studied a lot to get their grades.</p>
<p>Colleges don't care only about your work ethic; they also care about your work ethic. I can't tell you how annoying it has been for me listening to students confused about a simple subject like the different branches of government when they have learned all about them for the past 2 years!!</p>
<p>These kids are the "sponges". They study much more than other kids and get a 4.0 in hard classes, but at the end of day they will have retained nothing.</p>
<p>Colleges know that this cramming technique won't work well in college so oughta go for kids who can adapt to the new environment better and not cram for all their classes.</p>
<p>A 3.65 upward trend could also show that the person is now studying a lot to get better grades and studied a lot for the SAT. Maybe the person with the 4.0 is bad at taking standardized tests, or something drastic happened that day. </p>
<p>There's honestly no way you can make the assumptions you're making based only on numbers.</p>
<p>@kat41911</p>
<p>Well that's even more reason to take the 3.65. In college, you will take tons of cumulative tests which are more similar to the SAT than any other tests you take.</p>
<p>If a student is bad at tests, well there goes the majority of their class grades.</p>
<p>Also, for those who had something bad happen on test day: that's why they have multiple test dates.</p>
<p>I said bad at standardized tests, not tests in general, and I highly doubt college tests would be more similar to the SAT than to tests in high school. </p>
<p>As for multiple test dates, some people can't take it again. While this may not be the majority of people, you were solely basing your conclusions off a number. You had no idea whether the person took it once or not.</p>
<p>"highly doubt college tests would be more similar to the SAT than to tests in high school. "</p>
<p>That's where you're wrong. These sponges with a 4.0 are able to cram for tests on a small amount of knowledge. When they're hit with cumulative college midterms, they'll be failing. The SAT's cumulativity is more akin to this type of test.</p>
<p>If you don't plan ahead for a bad SAT score, then that reflects on your bad judgment. Colleges don't want kids with bad judgment.</p>
<p>you'llsee,</p>
<p>IQ scores develop until age 3, past which point they are static.</p>
<p>afruff23: The SAT is not about "cumulativity," it's (supposedly) about your ability to reason. It's supposed to have nothing to do with the amount of cumulative material you learn. College tests ARE about what you have learned, UNlike the SAT. Your comparison is faulty.</p>
<p>Also, I'm saying supposedly because I really believe the SAT is a matter of test prep and SAT-specific test-taking skills. However, it is designed to test your reasoning, not in any way to test the knowledge you accumulate.</p>
<p>i'm with afruff on this one. I think the SAT's are a pretty good measure of college potential. For the SAT, and especially in CR section IMO, it's hard sometimes for students to cram. I've seen people at my school who are ranked top 10, but can't even break 2000 for the SAT. They study way too much, but have trouble with the SAT and I think it's important that colleges have a way to distinguish between bright students with a lot of potential, and kids who just study day in and out for that 4.0.</p>
<p>I don't really disagree with you, cory123, but I don't completely understand. If those students are studying day in and day out, then they aren't cramming. Also, if they're studying all the time, why wouldn't they study really hard for the SAT as well? Maybe that's just me. </p>
<p>The only reason I disagreed with afruff was that you can't base the assumptions he was making off of solely numbers. Sure, high GPA and low SAT can mean that someone only studies really hard and isn't that bright, but it's not a fact. There could be many other explanations.</p>
<p>i dunno...it's just kinda hard to study for the SAT. Especially the CR section. It tests your life's cumulative reading ability, so cramming doesnt really work for that.</p>
<p>@kat41911</p>
<p>That's just a fact of life. Colleges don't have much info on you so they have to be objective.</p>
<p>The SAT is a cumulative test. You don't learn the math skills for it in one year or in one specific class. You learn the material through years of school. How well you do on this test depends on how much you've absorbed, which 4.0 sponges have failed to do.</p>
<p>The SAT is not testing you on the material you have accumulated. Sure, that material is on there, but it's not measuring how well you learned it or what you have absorbed. The SAT involves mostly basic math, which is why you don't need a calculator to take it. It's not about the complicated math you learn, it's about the person knowing how to reason their way to the solution, doing the appropriate simple math along the way. Also, no, you don't learn the math skills in one year, but that's because the purpose of math classes in school is not to prepare you for the SAT. </p>
<p>"The SAT Reasoning Test is a measure of critical thinking skills."
"The SAT assesses how well you analyze and solve problems."
Those are from the CollegeBoard website, and they mention nothing about cumulative knowledge.</p>
<p>The SAT was originally known as the Standard Aptitude Test, and its founder was a senior employee of the American Eugenics Society. I don't even know how people can take the test while they know this.</p>
<p>good point, M.S. However, people "can" take it because they must, for most colleges. Perhaps the direct audience is the admissions departments of colleges? (How can they insist on it, use it, countenance it, etc.?)</p>
<p>Boo eugenics!! Down with the SAT!</p>