<p>Gates does because he used to tell everyone. He also would ask women what their SAT was. (1) Reference in jest</p>
<p>(1) <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/quotes%5B/url%5D">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/quotes</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Gates does because he used to tell everyone. He also would ask women what their SAT was.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. I guess that doesn't surprise me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is the biggest bull ive ever heard. You, and I, and everyone else on this blog can openly admit that the SAT scores around the country are directly correlated to the income of the student's family.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This may be true, in a general way, but to go onto say that the relationship is entirely due to the ability of rich families' to pay for SAT prep courses is insulting to those who worked hard to achieve a good result. And the impact of those expensive prep courses are mostly hype, anyway - as you point out, most of the improvement in peoples' scores can be attributed to familiarity in taking the test. Simply taking the test a second time can add a 100 points to the score. Thing is, you don't have to be rich to re-take the test, simply register and re-take it, it's not that expensive. Or, I see there are "10 Real SAT tests" available on Amazon for $1 (used); I think most people can afford that - or to check it out at the library, where it's free.</p>
<p>You presuppose that simply being in an SAT prep course forces you to study; that's no more true than saying that checking out an SAT prep book from the library forces you to study it. Those that do well on the SAT exams, by and large, have studied more and worked harder at academics than those that don't do well. It doesn't make them better or smarter or better qualified to go to a particular college than those who didn't do well. But it <em>may</em> reflect their desire and willingness to work hard for what they want.</p>
<p>Everyone knows the SAT tests are a major factor in admissions, and those who want to go to the "most selective" schools will demonstrate that by putting in the extra work to do well on the SAT. Of the NMSQT semi-finalists and finalists at our high school last year, not 1 of them took a prep course, though all of them studied. And I'd think that those are precisely the types of students you'd want in a college - people who work hard for what they want. Conversely, those that won't put in the work for what they want, do they deserve the same status, the same consideration as those that did? </p>
<p>Everyone likes to say things like "SAT scores are a poor predictor of success in college", but then, most any single measure is probably a poor predictor of success. But I'll bet SAT and SAT-2 scores, GPA and class rank taken together are excellent predictors of "success". </p>
<p>Of course, for some, their time in the 40 may be the most important measure of all :).</p>
<p>But for most, these, and subjective measure likes course selection, extracurriculars and references are all evaluated and the admissions officers make their best decisions based on that. It's can't be a "perfect" system, but there needs to be <em>some</em> kind of determination of merit. I hear so many critics of the standards most colleges use, but they rarely offer anything to replace them but blatantly self-serving alternatives or little more than a lottery. Speaking of hitting the lottery ... </p>
<p>... it's been widely reported that Bill Gates' SAT was 1590. Oddly enough, imo, Bill Gates' success was a combination of incredible timing, luck, a massive inferiority complex, envy, ambition, and mom's money. He's many things, but other than the money, there's little worth emulating. Unless you're a business major or pre-law, where some of these things may come in handy .... :)</p>
<p>Squiddy, you don't know anything about Bill Gates.</p>
<p>Ironically, I remember my SAT score 20 years later because it wasn't good at all, particularly in math (think under 600). My GRE score wasn't very good either--1210. Yet, I was considered gifted according to some early IQ test, skipped a grade in elementary school, graduated 3rd in my class in high school, tested out of almost two years of college, and never made a B as an undergraduate or graduate student (4.0; 4.0). I ordinarily test well and never had to study hard for my grades so go figure.</p>
<p>Thank you TheAnalyst. My point exactly. And i am going for pre-law indeed. In terms of correlating scores with hard work, there are discrepencies. For instance, those who study HARD FOR THE TEST, but not in school, can do well, while those who work hard in school can do poorly on the SAT no matter how hard they study or drill into their heads those sentence completions. We all know that the SAT does not test intelligence, but strategy because ETS cunningly uses tone of words, and subliminal meaning of phrases and things of that nature to fit the "best possible answer". (Though we can all agree that almost always there are two right answers in reference to the verbal part). You must think like they do, and if you can do it, you will do great. How can it be that i have friends whose averages run in the 95+ range, Intel semifinalists, could not break 1300? Has hell frozen over? This reveals that the SAT is not an indication of ability, but strategy combined with practice. Its like learning to drive a car. Gradually, you get the hang of it.</p>
<p>Then you have the most ignorant fools who lack any sort of enlightened thinking score 1400 on the SAT. Ask them what their secret is? Vigorous studying and practicing. Now, as the Dean stated before, whats a MUCH better indicator, 4 years or 4 hours? Its funny how this has become ANOTHER argument over the merits of the SAT. I wish to cease this argument so that we can go back to the main topic which was on how the University can improve its admissions policy. </p>
<p>For one, even though i am only entering in August, i want to share a little bit of my opinion on the matter and maybe Dean J will give it some thought too. After doing diligent research about UVa over the past year, one of the most interesting things ive noticed is that UVa is desperately trying to appeal to a much broader audience, be more diverse and inclusive, raise a hell of a lot of money and raise its national rank to top 15. I think they are doing a hell of a good job. First, my HS has not had anybody go to UVa is years, and i mean, this NYC high school is an NYU and Cornell feeder, NOT UVa at all. In essence our students fear the south, as did I. Now, this year, all of a sudden, you have 2 people who will be attending. Thats a significant amount for a high school very far from TJHS in terms of feeder. UVa's endowment is growing at the second fastest pace in the country, second only to UMichigan. They are really doing a good job of eradicating the southern conservative image of the school (this image is very unattractive to most northeastern and western students, the bulk of where applications come from to elite universities), as various factors have contributed to UVa's evolution such as, and probably most importantly, the demographic change of Virginia. As Virginia is becoming more Democratic, more liberal, and as NoVa is becoming quite Blue as DC'ers are moving to VA, it has elected two Democratic governors in a row, and possibly will go blue in 2008 (hopefully). The point is that the student body has become much more diversified. The admissions office is doing a good job and i really hope that through my years at UVa (2006-2010), they will change the face of UVa. That means admitting people with more 3-dimentional characteristics. Leaders in every field from the sciences, social sciences, sports, arts, etc. Essays that reveal uniqueness, intrigue, a love of learning, passion, and motivation for success. People who are proactive and who want to take the lead in changing society in every aspect. UVa needs to be much more proactive in aggressive ad campaigns, more college fair visits, touring the country more vigorously, and attracting great students through higher financial aid packages. They need to raise the standards for in-staters. They need to raise the standards for the SAT, though i think getting in Out of State is as good as it can be right now in terms of competition and selection. What they need to change is how they choose in-state students. They can still attract the best of the best Virginians, and not have to lower their standards to maintain the 67% quota. All of these factors will really make UVa much more well-known to many more students as many either have no knowledge or bad opinion because "Virginia" is attached to it. This year, the counselors at my school, seeing how 2 people are going, have invited UVa to come to our annual college fair where many colleges come every year. They also have started to recommend applying to UVa to Juniors who are starting to research schools. It takes just one person for news to spread. In the past, they didnt really vigorously recommend it now because nobody really ever applied to UVa. So all in all, Dean J, i hope some of these ideas are probably being discussed at the annual Board of Visitors meeting im sure. Im just giving some opinion on the University that I hope to thrive in.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>A 1400 or above does not require rigorous studying and preparation. There's a reason why MIT and Yale grads outdo UVA grads. It's not so much that Yale and MIT are that much better than UVA as much as the students it takes are smarter. And yes, they get higher SATs.</p>
<p>Although, the SAT preps stress that SAT tells how well you take the SAT, not how smart you are. I think that's just to make most people feel better.</p>
<p>Brklyn2Cornell, </p>
<p>I liked your last paragraph. Yes, UVa is changing, and I believe for the better. I challenge you and the rest of your fellow classmates and soon-to-be students to make the best of your time at The University and to leave your mark in some way - no matter how large or small. Shoot, I further encourage you to continue to make a difference at UVa and beyond even after your graduate. </p>
<p>With all my heart, I believe UVa is a truly amazing institution - even with its flaws. Unlike most schools, it was built with such a grand purpose in mind - in Jefferson's words...to be the "bulwark of the human mind in this hemisphere." If you don't believe in your alma mater, how can you expect others to think highly of it? I agree w/ Semiserious from another thread when he/she wrote that UVa is as good as the Ivies. Nonetheless, if there is something you think should improve at UVa and in the world in general, work to change it. This is your life. This is your university. This is your world.</p>
<p>To embolden you, here are some of my favorite quotes:</p>
<p>From fellow alum Woodrow Wilson:<br>
"You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand."</p>
<p>From fellow alum Robert F. Kennedy:<br>
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"</p>
<p>From Eleanor Roosevelt:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."</p>
<p>From Nelson Mandela:<br>
"Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God; your playing small doesnt serve the world. There is nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people wont feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God / the Divine within us. It is not in just some of us. It is in everyone, and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."</p>
<p>From Theodore Roosevelt:
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood
who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end of triumph
high achievement, and
if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."</p>
<p>Wahoowah!!!</p>
<p>I have no connection to Virginia or UVA but this is an interesting discussion. </p>
<p>It seems to me that SAT (or ACT) scores are important and that perhaps they should be even more important than GPAs, essays and extracurricular activities. First, with SAT scores, you know you are evaluating the student's work as compared to essays, because you never know how much help a student has had with the essays. Second, you don't have to worry about comparing a GPA from a known high school with a GPA from a high school that the admissions committee has never heard of. Third, SAT scores enable colleges to directly compare applicants using a consistent national measuring stick.</p>
<p>I certainly understand why college admissions committees would want to amplify their knowledge of an applicant using GPAs, essays, ECs, etc. But it always made sense to me that the starting point would be SAT scores.</p>
<p>Wealthy students don't score high on the SAT. This is primarily because students aren't wealthy, their parents are. Wealthy parents are usually smart parents. Smart parents beget smart children. Smart children score well on the SAT.</p>
<p>what? .</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>In response to:</p>
<p>
[quote]
You, and I, and everyone else on this blog can openly admit that the SAT scores around the country are directly correlated to the income of the student's family. Therefore, students coming from wealthier families can certainly pay a 1000 dollars for a course that FORCES you to study for a test that most dont want to study for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>bump bump bump</p>