<p>My theory is that high school GPA and SAT Subject Tests measure how well someone learns in the school setting and that SAT I measures how well someone learns both inside and outside the school setting. If my theory is correct, then the GPA/SAT II scores would correlate more highly with college GPA than would the SAT I.</p>
<p>ETS/TCB offers the following Subject Tests:</p>
<p>Non Languages Test
1. English Literature
2. U.S. History (formerly American History and Social Studies)
3. World History
4. Mathematics Level 1 (formerly Mathematics IC)
5. Mathematics Level 2 (formerly Mathematics IIC)
6. Biology E/M
7. Chemistry
9. Physics </p>
<p>Languages Tests
1. Chinese with Listening
2. French
3. French with Listening
4. German
5. German with Listening
6. Spanish
7. Spanish with Listening
8. Modern Hebrew
9. Italian
10. Latin
11. Japanese with Listening
12. Korean with Listening</p>
<p>Before we could ascertain how SAT Subject Tests "could" measure how well someone learns in the school setting, should we not count the number of students who are TAUGHT the various subjects in our own high schools?</p>
<p>I think Murray is just peeved because they removed the analogies section and made it less like an IQ test.</p>
<p>Eliminate SAT I and you will have an industry devoted to evaluating the best SAT II's to take and coaching students on the material. There is no substitute for standardized testing because we need someting that is, hmm let's see, ah yes "standardized"!</p>
<p>No test designed to show intelligence/potential is ever going to be completely 100% standardized. There's no controlling for number of tries, prep, motivation to achieve a certain "benchmark". </p>
<p>You may be onto something with your comment about the author being peeved because they changed the test. Back in my day, the analogies section was the most feared part of the SAT. I can't even remember taking the SAT, much less how I responded to the different parts...but, why was that section so reviled?</p>
<p>doubleplay,
As one who posts SAT comparisons frequently and who believes that they DO have some predictive value for at least the first year, I think you may be overstating the degree of emphasis that people like me place on the SAT. As a tool of comparison among schools, it is probably the best tool because it's easy and, of course, standardized. All students took the same tests. By comparison, measures like GPA and Top 10% are messy, not standardized and have lots of complicating issues. Having said all that, even I believe that the SAT is but one data point (and often not even that big of one) for admissions counselors. My sense is that they, after years of working with these scores, and seeing thousands and thousands of applications next to the rest of a student's transcript, can figure out its meaning and also smoke out the income level of the applicant and how this might affect the likelihood of a test prep-enhanced score. As skiers-mom pithily puts it above, "it's just one tool of many."</p>
<p>I also think (tho there is contradictory commentary on this point) that adcoms can clearly see the difference between a high "single sitting" score, and the superscorers, who have taken the test multiple times, with an upward (or not) trend. Is the 1410 on a single sitting the same as the superscored 1410 after four attempts? Seems a number of people think not.</p>
<p>Within the context of a whole application, all of this information is worthwhile.</p>
<p>Don't the admission offices that accept the "superscores and allow low-level technicians to enter the subscores and present the best combination to the readers do this to avoid spending much time on ... analyzing the trends of the SAT or count the number of sittings?</p>
<p>Using AND reporting the highest combination of scores is the best interest of the school (first and foremost) and then of the admitted students.</p>
<p>While there is no difference between a 1400 from one sitting and one for multiple sittings, the same is not true for a 1400 from one sitting and a 1500 from four sittings!</p>
<p>Why is there a natural tendency of this board that if a kid scores high on SAT, he had years of coaching/extensive preparation/tutoring/prep schooling/wealthy parents?</p>
<p>My post was in response to the comment about the SAT superscore being an indication of intelligence and ability, not how it figures into the admissions process. Not doubt, the higher the score, the better the odds.</p>
<p>I'll even use my own son as an example, because I don't mean to denigrate or point the finger at others. He took the test twice, and improved by 130 points. His friend took it once, and did better than my son's FIRST test by 50 points. Is son definitely more intelligent than his friend? I don't buy into it. His friend didn't revisit the test because he got what he needed to go to where he wanted to go. Had he needed a higher score, he might have tried again. Without at least trying it a second time, I'm not willing to believe he would NEVER have been able to beat my son's score. Who knows?</p>
<p>And in the world of bizarre SAT anecdotes, I knew a mom who pushed her daughter into prepping and retaking the SAT AFTER she had already been accepted into her ED first choice school. She just wanted to go "on record" with a higher score. What this has to do with the topic is nothing, I just thought it was a bizarre story of how far people will go and how "self-defining" the SAT score has become.</p>
<p>simba, It's not that people believe that about everyone, or that people believe there's something <em>wrong</em> with it...CC is not indicative of the general population. There are far more students on here that aspire to go to elite schools than in your typical high school, far more ambitious students, far more students who are willing to retake the SAT for that extra 50 points. Xiggi himself has come up with a popular program for SAT improvement. There's an entire test prep industry out there. FAR more students prep and repeat tests than in my day. Taking one and only one test and doing nothing at all to prep is probably the exception rather than the rule.</p>
<p>I agree Simba, I am aware of low income working class kids who score in the top 1% without prep. I think a lot of folks who do poorly on these tests use the income and prep issues as a way to protect thier own egos. The best prep is reading, doing math, reviewing vocabulary and taking a couple of practice exams. None of this requires parents with PhD's or lots of money.</p>
<p>One part is that is misunderstood or overlooked when debating the number of sittings is that reducing the test to a single sitting (a la 11th grade PSAT) would not really help the poor who do not have access to tutors and other legal or illegal crutches. </p>
<p>Were the test only offered once to every aspiring college student, a premium on the access to preparation help would be created. The wealthy who can afford high priced tutors would have access to a battery of tools, including past tests, mock testing facilities, among many other items. Others would continue to have access to SAT mills where older and newer tests are compiled. Finally, others would continue to have access to the proceeds of obtaining data illegaly through various forms that include the organized cheating that is rampant in Asian countries.</p>
<p>Of course, students who were able to earn a great score without dedicated help or preparation would not be affected by a change to a one test for everyone. The ones who would suffer the most are the students who attempt to overcome obtacles by presenting the test several times and use the first attempts as mere trials.</p>
<p>I've never understood why there is only one-shot on the AP tests. For many people, the opportunity to knock out some college credits during high school is an economic necessity. Woe to the kid who came into the test site after staying up all night with gastrointestinal distress.</p>
<p>I agree xiggi, about making multiple test opportunities available. (Again, lest I be misunderstood I was only talking about defining one's intelligence based on the SAT superscore, not that it should be abolished or restricted).</p>
<p>I'm thinking peer influence, and maybe parental influence is as important as income and level of parental education in terms of how kids approach college admission. My husband and I are both well educated, (albeit 20 years ago) and before "CC", we'd never imagined some of the stuff I read here. In fact, I found "CC" trying to figure out if it made sense to take a SAT "prep" class.</p>
<p>Just a note about SAT IIs: In some high schools (like my son's), sometimes they do not cover enough material to be successful on the SAT II science tests. So eliminating SAT I but keeping SAT II would discriminate against those students, who are much less likely to be able to afford physics or chemistry tutors. Also, in my son's experience, SAT II scores were higher than SAT I, but not by a whole lot (no test prep for either).</p>
<p>This is such a loaded subject. As the parent of a kid with excellent scores from a tough-grading high school, I'm not complaining. But the test prep industry and students' and parents' SAT obsession have gotten way out of hand. As other posters have pointed out, SATs are simply one piece of information for admissions offices.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure that the test prep industry has gotten out of hand. I think it exists in certain pockets of the population, but not in the majority of college-bound students. CC is not a good representation of the general public - a nice safe place for us obsessive parents to whine, vent, share and question.</p>
<p>Some kids need the prep - learning disabilities come to mind. I've know some parents who are over the top on the college-prep from too early an age. I stopped listening to them and stuck with our "covers all" advice to skier-son as he headed out the door for SAT - DO YOUR BEST. He choose to retake the SAT to up his writing score. Second time around - up 100+ point, because he "just keep writing until the bell rang". Do they teach that in prep courses?</p>
<p>I'm all for the "one test" offer, but then, I am also opposed to extensive modifications, unless (as I have said on CC before), the colleges were alerted as to which students availed themselves of said modifications.</p>
<p>Since the SAT is susceptible to both prepping/coaching and testing modifications, it is far from perfect. Offering it in a similar fashion to the AP tests: single date, single test, no retake, would absolutely be a more "pure" revelation of skills/aptitude and provide a full new data set. I don't think we are going that direction, but it is interesting to think about.</p>
<p>Allmusic, please see my earlier post about a "single date, single test, no retake test.</p>
<p>While it would provide a revelation of skills/aptitude and a full new data set, it would be far from pure. As I wrote earlier, it would simply increase the gap between the 9very) well prepared and the regular student. Student with access to previously used material would have a huge leg up. How would the regular students compete with students who can benefit from the advantages "shared" by groups determined to beat the system at ALL cost? </p>
<p>The nefarious impact of multiple sittings is one heck of a canard.</p>
<p>"I think it's important to remember why the SAT was developed - to find a way to indentify academically gifted students outside of eastern boarding schools..."</p>
<p>How ironic: since now i.m.o. the <em>consequence</em> of its use is that it too often EXCLUDES academically gifted students outside of eastern boarding schools (while also including others).</p>
<p>The problem with the SAT as a "measure," or even as a validator, is this very contradictory quality of its supposed 'measurement.' I strongly disagree that a student from a rigorous, challenging private school (consisting of similar peer students) needs a score to validate his or her A's in classes that most publics can't even dream of. THIS is the fallacy to the whole "it's a GPA-leveler" argument. It is NOT a GPA-leveler EXCEPT (again) in the inclusive sense: a Val from an underperforming or a limited-offering highschool, and who has no condition (such as LD) compromising a good-result test sitting, has the opportunity to be more widely noticed by an admissions committee, with a high SAT I score. In no way, shape, or form is it fair to attribute A's in challenging electives or content-rich AP classes to grade inflation. You need to know the school. You may not need to know every U.S. high school in detail, nor would you have time for that. You need the highschools to step up to the plate & provide such info to colleges: Here's what we learn, here's how we teach, here is how we assess what & how each student has learned, here's our syllabus & reading list for this class. Not all such information exists in the celebrated "High School Profile" routinely distributed by the school's GC (or head, if there's no GC). Those profiles are way too generic to be of much use for admissions committees to differentiate the quality of learning in one classroom vs. that in the classroom of a different school. (It's not just the school or the classroom, it's the class.)</p>
<p>I disagree, Xiggi.</p>
<p>Some kids study like crazy for the AP exams. Some kids don't, but they all go in and give it their best shot on a single day.</p>
<p>On a single SAT administration, there would certainly still be kids who study like crazy, prep with tutors, etc. And there would still be kids who don't, but I see this particular scenario as somewhat less troubling than our current model. I think the "regular"/more advantaged differences might actually be leveled out with a single test administration.</p>