<p>Yup, I'll go out on the unpopular limb and say that a high one sitting SAT does mean one is smarter than the overstudied mulit-tester.</p>
<p>Not too politically correct? Oh well. It's the absolute truth.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>People tend to use what they have: grades, scores, degrees, trophies.... their "long career as a student and as a teacher and consultant". But on a board like this one, it helps to actually have an argument. What was yours on post #58 and what does it have to do with whether or not to "Abolish the SAT"?</p>
<p>All music,</p>
<p>You might be right on the multiple tesing thing if you could control for practice tests. Unfortunately you can't. There is a lot of evidence that there are diminishing returns to multiple tests. The scores of someone who took two practice tests and one regular test versus somone who just took three regular tests ought to be fairly similar, all other things being equal. This also eliminates the old argument that it is "just one day", "suppose you are sick or in a bad mood" etc. the current super score approach is actually a response to some old complaints. Since anyone who wants to only pay for only one test can garner the same advantage by taking practice tests the system seems fair. Apparently scores on the 4th or 5th test, whether practice or real, tend to be not much better than the 3rd.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's the absolute truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does one demonstrate that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Fairtest says that schools on their list "de-emphasize" test scores
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many of the schools on the FairTest list, the last time I checked, were schools with explicit open-admission policies that were not only SAT-neutral, but also grade neutral, work-experience-neutral, and oblivious to any other consideration besides the student's willingness to apply.</p>
<p>Token Adult, "It's the absolute truth" is a bit glib; however,considering that you routinely point people towards TIP and CTY, and programs for high scorers in 7th grade, I am sure you know the answer to your first question.</p>
<p>If you look at the list of schools on the Fairtest web site, many have a footnote attached. Middlebury is footnote #5 (SAT/ACT not required if submit SAT Subject Test, Advancement Placement, Int'l Baccalaureate or other exams).</p>
<p>Re: Post 62: I have an argument, and I argue well. My argument is not "my long career." Post 58 was not in itself "an argument." Post 58 was an observation, an observation which supports the reasoning behind those colleges which choose to be standardized test-optional. Their decision is based similarly on years of experience. The point is, people with high scores have nothing to fear, unless they're relying on their high scores as a supposed elite college admission ticket, and then yes: then they're very threatened by any admissions policy which makes that score an optional element, and thus with more fluid (relative) value that does not arbitrarily advantage them over students who may have a more overall impressive profile.</p>
<p>I think that arcadia is correct. Also Middlebury is discussed here:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/strategy.html?ex=1186459200&en=01bfa1cd5494c5e8&ei=5070&emc=eta1%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/strategy.html?ex=1186459200&en=01bfa1cd5494c5e8&ei=5070&emc=eta1</a></p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>I hadn't noticed that anyone was suggesting here, or elsewhere, that colleges should be compeled to use the SAT's, or that anyone was suggesting that elite colleges give a free pass to high scorers. Your post is, at best, an argument for something that is not in dispute.</p>
<p>Doing away with SAT and relying on SAT II will only shift the test preparation into SAT II. What will be needed is a radical change in the testing system. One idea is to let universities adminster their own tests. While this may be a burden for universities as well as students, it has the advantage of reducing the current practice of applying to a ridiculously large number of schools. Universities do this to some extend already in terms of placement for incoming students. Additionally, state universities will benefit in retaining in-state students.</p>
<p>padad,</p>
<p>Unfortunately, such a system (each college administering its own test) would be very expensive either to the colleges or to students or both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yup, I'll go out on the unpopular limb and say that a high one sitting SAT does mean one is smarter than the overstudied mulit-tester.</p>
<p>Not too politically correct? Oh well. It's the absolute truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolute truth? How about rephrasing that as to an "absolute tenet." </p>
<p>For starters, does the SAT really measure how smart one is? Or does it measure how well a student scores on the ... SAT. </p>
<p>For the record, and since it seems OK to go on unpopular limbs, I think that the stories of "unprepped" kids who never opened a SAT booklet and scored in the stratosphere would rarely survive a deeper scrutiny. </p>
<p>I have seen plenty of really smart people not do well on their first SAT. It is not unheard for someone who aced the Subject test Math Level 2 to be puzzled by questions containing strange and non-mathematical signs on the more pedestrian SAT. Spending some time on the SAT forum might help understand the reality a little bit better. </p>
<p>Further, it is "smart" to bank on a very good score from one sitting when a second testing might yield a ... homerun? </p>
<p>When it comes to the SAT, it is understandable that people have divergent opinions, but I still find it fascinating how much idle speculation is elevated to the lofty standards of the absolute truth.</p>
<p>Xiggi, wrong again. I know there has been a thread about SET before, but these are (until recently; I don't know of the current situation), unprepped 13 year olds who score above 700. These kids are unquestionably more intelligent than your average 13 year old. I happen to know a few of these kids myself. ;)</p>
<p>Anecdotally, my own son scored two perfect 800's without any paid prep or opening any prep book (he should have opened it for CR, and may have scored an 800 on that too). I happen to know three other students who also scored 800's, unprepped. </p>
<p>I am simply one person, who knows of four unprepped 800's. I am certain other people know other students like this.</p>
<p>No,the SAT isn't an IQ test, but there is an uncanny correlation between natural high scorers, and high IQs.</p>
<p>Why would it be expensive? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>For state universities, there is usually a campus within driving distance (not necessarily the intended enrolled campus). </p></li>
<li><p>For students who wish to attend a public university in another state, an agreement on administering the test locally can be made between colleges. </p></li>
<li><p>Alumni are already used for local interviews. I don't see why they can't be tapped to adminster tests. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>While grading these tests may take some resources, ad com's have to do that already in reading essays and recommendations etc. Gradings do not have to be done manual anyway.</p>
<p>padad,</p>
<p>These tests are actually expensive to make up. Questions need to be tested and changed with some frequency etc. Your system is what we did pre-College Board.</p>
<p>Allmusic, I also know my share of students who scored perfect 800.</p>
<p>You overlooked that I wrote "unprepped*"* as opposed to unprepped. SAT preparation can take many forms, including the preparation during classes. Teachers are not unpaid helpers, even you may not get a specific bill. </p>
<p>Can you categorically state that NOBODY at your son's school uses the word SAT? That not a single professor incorporates SAT test preparation in his or single curriculum? That your son did not participate in the CTY preliminary assessment, or similar programs? </p>
<p>Should I go on? </p>
<p>Students face the SAT armed with very different backgrounds and very different educational levels. Students who attend very selective high schools might not need an EXTRA dosis of SAT preparation as it is built-in in their curriculum. On the other hand, there are students who attend schools where the SAT is a total afterthought.</p>
<p>^^^Agree!</p>
<p>As well, it would increase rather than decrease the number of exams a student would have to take. Suppose a student aimed for H, Y, or P but needed a safety. That's already two sets of exams, one for H, or Y or P and one for the safety. If the student wants to have a "match school," that's a third exam.</p>
<p>It strikes me that the lack of a national curriculum and lack of consensus about grading practices has led American students to take more exams than the students of other countries. In high school, they have course finals,
their state's high stakes exit exam, APs, PSAT, SAT or ACT, SATIIs.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I am not contending that students do not come armed with different backgrounds and experiences. </p>
<p>People claim that both IQ tests and SATs are culturally biased, for exactly these reasons. And yet, you will find some kids from quite culturally deprived backgrounds who are high scorers on both measures. Why is that, if they have not had the advantages of the wealthy kids? Some testing simply transcends wealth and advantage. That is my point.</p>
<p>Sure, the "disadvantaged" average student, without access to tutors and classes is not likely to do as well on the SAT as the advantaged average student who has access to such. But there are still kids who will do exceptionally well without any advantages at all, and will beat out all the kids with the advantages. In this way, they are wholly "unprepped", as well as unprepped, and still leave the prepped kids in the dust.</p>
<p>^^ which is why a standardized test submission OPTION is the best route, as an admissions policy. It neither punishes such high scoring students, nor fails to account for factors making many disadvantaged students less competitive in the testing arena. It is win/win. The colleges can and will do their own cross-referencing to determine potential, and may STILL come down on the side of particular high scorers.</p>
<p>"2400 vs. 1700...Do you really believe that a higher SAT means smarter?"</p>
<p>The way parameters were defined, yes.</p>
<p>I guess you believe that certain races are smarter than others then, because there are differences in average SATs."</p>
<p>NO.</p>