<p>I had 3.7-3.8 GPA and got 1950 on my SAT.. I really didn't study in general thoguh, i didn't know how to go about studying for the SAT. None of my friends were taking it (ACTs or they already got accepted somehow) and I had nobody telling me or helping me in anyway.</p>
<p>I guess if i had my parents telling me to study more often i would've done better, but whatever.</p>
<p>The day before the SATs, i was hanging with out my friends until 10 or so which was pretty much the most retarded thing I did... and I think I got one of my lowest SAT scores the next day</p>
<p>I really wish I could've done well on 1 SAT so I wouldn't have wasted so much of my parent's money to collegeboard, those evil bastards. XP</p>
<p>Hepstar, I only put that example, a 4.0 with a 1320 gpa to show how skewed your example was. Your's was,
Candidate 2:
2.5 GPA
Top 50% of class
2200 SAT</p>
<p>How many people smack in the middle of their class get's 2200 SAT's?</p>
<p>I went to an 18th Birthday Party the night before my SAT, in Hong Kong when that's the legal drinking age =P And I didn't study for it...courses for SAT's aren't thaatt helpful. Sure Princeton Review guarantees a rise of 100 points...but 100 points isn't even out of the 150-180 point range for SAT's. a 200 point difference depends on the day, and your luck. SAT and GPA discrepancys in that range don't show anything. Again, GPA ranges of that small a percentage, like a 4.0 to a 3.8 depends on whether you're lucky enough to get a lenient teacher or easier courses, even at the same High School. The only times GPA to SAT scores vary are the extreme cases with 4.0 Students getting 1500 SATs. In those, I think that there is a higher chance that the high school, which is an isolated unregulated system is particularly easy, rather than the SAT's, being a standard widespread test, is where the irregularity lies. A 2200 with a 3.0 is smarter than a 1700 with a 4.0 in more cases than vice versa for work ethic.</p>
<p>A 4.0 and a 1700 would be hard to manage. High grades in English/History result from work - period. So it's the math that screws people. And even if you take an easy math class - what happens when you hit physics...? I'd imagine it's hard to maintain a 4.0 w/o a clear understanding of algebra. And clearly, one who has a 1700 doesn't have a clear understanding of algebra.</p>
<p>I agree. I mean the SAT is just another test. jeez how is one period of three hours supposed to measure someone's intelligence? Plus, not everyone is on their shall I say "A-game" when they take the test. So, in my opinion it is a purely pointless three hours, brain power, and tons of paper. Sadly the colleges I am planning on applying to don't agree...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree. I mean the SAT is just another test. jeez how is one period of three hours supposed to measure someone's intelligence? Plus, not everyone is on their shall I say "A-game" when they take the test. So, in my opinion it is a purely pointless three hours, brain power, and tons of paper. Sadly the colleges I am planning on applying to don't agree...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "it's just a three-hour test!" argument is ridiculous. Just take it again. Or once more. Or once again. You can take the stupid thing as many times as you want. And usually, the scores are quite close to each other. It's not a coincidence. It can't be a "bad day" EVERY SINGLE TIME, can it?</p>
<p>^^ The argument about taking it over and over again is ridiculous. How does the fact that I can take this test as many times as I want to until I like my grade really show how smart I am? Does this situation really work in the real world? </p>
<p>In every career...and even within each college application process, we have ONE chance to show how good we are.</p>
<p>Well, the thing is for most people you can take it as many times as you want to, but that doesn't equate to getting 2400 eventually. Well, I don't think the main point of it is to allow people to take it over and over. Repeats keep it fair, just in case you're ill or something. Your school doesn't drop you from an A to a C if you're unlucky to be sick on one day will they? And I sure hope you wouldn't get fired if you're sick on one day in a year. The high cost does deter some people from taking over and over, not the best mechanism though, and the fact that all your test scores are sent to the university will show the university your normal standard, and lower the perception of your final score anyway. </p>
<p>Umm, how much time does it need to measure someone's intelligence? I think that basic english and math skills are really about as basic as you can get. If you need an entire year just to see if someone can read a passage and understand it fully, and if they can think logically (maths) on their feet, then maybe you didn't do too well in your SATS =P</p>
<p>
[quote]
How does the fact that I can take this test as many times as I want to until I like my grade really show how smart I am?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because no matter how many times you take it, the scores correlate quite closely. That indicates that even if you take it just once, the score is reasonably accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In every career...and even within each college application process, we have ONE chance to show how good we are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok? So are you suggesting we only be allowed to take the SAT once and only once?</p>
<p>The fact that you are allowed to take it as many times as you want only makes it even more fair. If you're not on your "A-game" one day, you should be the next time you take it, or the next, and so on. If that's the only excuse you have for thinking the SAT is unfair and feeling that you didn't do as well as you maybe wanted to, all you have to do is retake it...</p>
<p>It seems pretty clear-cut to me. In the vast majority of cases, a person who gets a 2300/2400 is more academically gifted than the person who gets a 1500/2400. Unless there is some underlying psychological issue, there seems to be a rough correlation between academic talent/motivation and SAT score. </p>
<p>HOWEVER-- when we zoom in a bit more and start looking at smaller score differences, the picture changes. In my opinion, again in vast majority of cases, the difference between a person who scores a hundred or two-hundred points above someone else tells you little to nothing about their relative intelligences. Scores change, a bit of prep can raise you 300 points, and where one day you might get an 800, the next you'll get a 700. Some people, who may handle real-life stress very well, who are excellent students, talented, and by all other measures academically proficient and intelligent, may still only be lapping at the 2000 mark. </p>
<p>Many of the very intellectual people I know score in the low 2000s or high 1900s. Others are in the 2300s. And when I look at their achievements, their academic performance, their contributions in class, and their abilities to capably discuss issues, I would be hard-pressed to say that the high-scorers are any smarter in any appreciable sense than the comparatively lower-scorers.</p>
<p>The SAT is useful for classifying candidates in broad categories for admissions. It is also useful on a personal level for revealing individual subject weaknesses. But when scores are so capricious, it seems ludicrous to use those numbers as the end-all, be-all measure of academic intelligence.</p>
<p>Exactly...that's why collegeboard uses ranges. A 2100 is equal to a 2300 because they recognise that anything within that range is probably down to having a good day and guessing the right answer after cutting out 3.</p>
<p>i hated the essay... i was cramming vocab words the night before and i guess i didnt get enough sleep so i fell asleep during the essay and i woke up when the proctor said i had 5 minutes left.. i ended up with a 4(not out of 6..out of 12) for my essay lol. but i still had a 2250. 800 for math and critical reading but a 650 for writing...</p>
<p>"Because no matter how many times you take it, the scores correlate quite closely. That indicates that even if you take it just once, the score is reasonably accurate."</p>
<p>Actually, both my math and verbal increased by 200 points: quite dramatic if I may say so myself. Though of course, I studied for the SAT before taking the test again, and I was a few years older. </p>
<p>I have a 1370(M+V), 3.5 UW, and 150-160 IQ.</p>
<p>The correlation between IQ and SAT score is very very strong (.8), so there seems to be a discrepancy in your scores. Was your IQ professionally tested or was it tested online? How old were you when you got tested?</p>
<p>Yes, but you generally don't stop developing and the tests must retain some merit, otherwise they wouldn't bother to administer them. I will most likely take another test, but I believe they are frivolous elitist tools anyway.</p>
<p>SATs are necessary. Colleges look first and foremost at your secondary school record, the grades you've gotten, your GPA, whatever you want to call it. Since these can be so variable, they also ask for other information to put your grades into perspective. This other information includes recommendations from teachers, essays, and SATs.</p>
<p>SATs serve to bring a hazy GPA into focus. Suppose two different students both have 4.0 GPAs and have taken the same classes, but one got a 2200 on the SAT and one got an 1800. Clearly, the student who received an 1800 was enrolled in a school that did not prepare him well enough for college-level thinking, and the student who received a 2200 is much more prepared for college-level work.</p>
<p>I know what some of you are thinking. "The SAT does not measure intelligence, or one's ability to handle college-level work." Well, in short, it does. The SAT is not a mashup of random vocabulary and algebra questions. It has been designed with input from professors and scientists so as to be a good indicator and tester of rational thinking, as well as basic knowledge and skills necessary for college-level work (basic algebra, understanding what you read, the ability to write a well conceived essay). Higher scores on this test do tend to correlate to better performance at the college level.</p>
<p>Sure, every now and then there may be circumstances under which certain people get scores they don't deserve (whether the score is too high or too low), but this is anomalous. </p>
<p>The SAT serves a very valuable purpose in college admissions. Colleges needed a way to differentiate between the levels of education that students were receiving, because GPAs don't tell the whole story. They needed a standard by which they could measure all applicants. College Board stepped up and fulfilled this need with the SAT. And then people started complaining about their SAT scores not being indicative of intelligence because their score did not match their supposedly stellar GPA. So the ACT was developed, which employs an entirely different method of assessing intelligence and capability. And guess what? The best prepared students from the best schools still invariably test better than those from other schools which don't provide as good of an education; the scores are so interchangeable that colleges see fit to simply equate the ACT score to an SAT score.</p>
<p>Bad test taking...the SAT tests endurance...has nothing to do with "real" intelligence...these excuses are repeated ad infinitum. Perhaps some of them are valid. There have to be some outliers in this process; no system is perfect. But the SAT/ACT system is still pretty damn accurate, and the vast majority of these so-called "bad test takers" are simply students who don't want to admit that their golden GPA is not quite as breathtaking when one considers what they have actually learned in their academic career and the qualities of mind they possess as a result.</p>