<p>'So if you're intelligent you can score over 2200 on the SATs?
Where are you getting this from? the SATs do NOT test your intellgence. Yes I do understand scoring under 1600 or so does show you aren't AS inteligent as people with 2200, but frankly, I feel that if you reach a certain score 1900 or so it wont really make you more inteliigenct than a person with a 2200, you know?'</p>
<p>You know in a way you just argued for me. The main point of this argument is that a high SAT score does show intelligence. You just set the bar at a difference place from me. I regarded 2100-2200 as a cut off for being more intelligent than, I believe I cited 1600 in my example. That's a 500,600 point difference. I never said that a 2200 makes you more intelligent than a 2000. In fact I improved from a 2000 to a 2200 in one year without ever stepping into a SAT course so I don't regard 200 points as a significant difference in intelligence. Even you said that you considered anyone above a 'cut-off' of 1900 to be more intelligent. It doesn't matter where the cut-off is as intelligence is subjective and relative, but the fact that you admitted to a cut-off means that SAT's do measure intelligence, it's just a matter of agreeing whether intelligent means getting 98 percentile or 90 percentile.</p>
<p>SAT's also already inherently answer to your problem asking whether 2200 = smarter than a 2000. Have you noticed there's a range for scores? This is usually a 50-60 point range. That means SAT's themselves consider a 2000-2180 composite equal.
SAT's aren't meant to be exact, a 2000+ SAT = more intelligent than a 1600. Like any test geared towards the average test-taker, the scale also get's less accurate at the extremes. However if the difference is big enough then it measures it.</p>
<p>Anyway, the exact same thing occurs with GPA. a 3.9 wouldn't be considered that much more hard working than a 3.8, but a 3.9 compared to a 3.2?</p>
<p>Now linking back to the original post, I believe this thread was initially talking about a 400 gap between 1800 and 2200 anyway...So I have no idea where you pulled 2000 out of to argue against me. (making a 400 point increase from my example of 1600 to make my argument look weak, well....you're lucky it was the last page and people don't click back a lot) Now wouldn't a 400 point difference show that if not the 2200 person is smarter, at least they should be considered roughly equal in intelligence? And if even slightly dumber, that doesn't quite account for the 3.0 - 4.0 gpa difference if the schools really did mark on the same scale now would it?</p>
<p>Im lost....
but as I ALREADY said, the SAT does measure intelligence to a certain extent. Meaning most people with 2200 are pretty smart, yet there are contradictions to each rule. Not every person with a 2200 is smart, and thats what a lot of ppl were saying.
And a lot of you have said GPA shows effort but SAT shows intelligence, now thats complete bs. You can prepare for the SAT. You can do practice tests. Get a tutor. Memorize words. The ways to prepare are limitless! So its the exact same thing, the SAT DOES show your effort. Ofcourse, some people might be able to score an 800 on math without studying, and others no matter how intelligent they are they might not be able to score over 600 on CR, just beacuse they cant or they didnt prep enough that doesnt make them any less intelligent.</p>
<p>^Or it means you got more familiar with the test. Also, your initial score couldn't have been too high if you are going up by 300 points a few times. Most people do better on the SAT the second time around because they know what they are getting into, kknow how to manage their time better, and know the types of questions to look out for. </p>
<p>To answer the initial question, SAT and GPA are different things. In the days of grade inflation, it is hard to know which 4.0 is stronger and if the kid with a 3.8 knows the material better than the kid with a 3.9. At my school you can get an A with a 100% or with an 89.5%. Both kids may end up with 4.0s, but one is stronger than the other. The SAT and ACT are standardized tests to guage students across the country. Both are imperfect, but they are all colleges really have to compare a student from school X and anohter from school Y.</p>
<p>The SAT is really the only tool that colleges have to equally compare all applicants academically. GPAs can vary so much by school and just judging by that would put students at very competitive and challenging schools at a huge disadvantage. Also, the SAT doesn't really test anything that's too crazy. It includes skills that are generally taught in the classroom anyway. So I don't see why people who are doing so great academically and work hard for their 4.0s suddenly have trouble doing as well as they want to on the SAT when they should probably know most of what the test covers.</p>
<p>Yes - Remember, colleges ARE NOT (I repeat - ARE NOT) comparing GPAs of kids from different schools. While they may and probably will compare the GPAs of two kids coming from the same school, they WILL NOT say, "oh, this kid from California has a 3.9 and this kid from Florida has a 3.8. California's in... it doesn't work that way.</p>
<p>I know they won't directly, but at least standardized tests help lower gpa students from better schools stand out more rather than them just relying solely on the fact that colleges will take into account the difficulty of their school. That wouldn't be a very good position to be in.</p>
<p>SATs aren't the only factor in admissions. EC's and essays are also considered. Nevertheless, SAT/ACT are very important for the exact reason in the above post. Although they are flawed and although they hurt kids who test poorly, they are the main thing we have to equate academic potential in students from different schools. In rare cases though (ie: the 1900 kid that I mentioned earlier), an outstanding GPA could offset a less-than-stellar SAT.</p>
<p>Take these 2 hypothetical appilcants:</p>
<p>Candidate 1:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
1900 SAT</p>
<p>Candidate 2:
2.5 GPA
Top 50% of class
2200 SAT</p>
<p>Which of the 2 would a college admit first, based solely on academics? If I had a choice, I would pick candidate 1 because IMO, a solid GPA is more important than a solid SAT.</p>
<p>However, if this were the scenario:</p>
<p>Candidate 1:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
1900 SAT</p>
<p>Candidate 2:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
2200 SAT</p>
<p>If had to choose, I would pick candidate 2. He/she has the high GPA like candidate 1, as well as high SAT scores.</p>
<p>Of course this example doesn't take EC's into account, but you get the idea. Or at least I hope you do.</p>
<p>guys, i have to agree that SAT is baloney. i feel like its more luck than skill involved. But colleges cant just use gpa to determine whether you are a good student. there would be grade inflation in some schools. However, i do like how the colleges are looking at the extra currics and essays instead of these two.</p>
<p>BTW</p>
<p>i have a 4.0 GPA and SAT 2300
however, my SAT did not start as 2300, it was in the 1900 area before. just take more practice tests and get used to the questions.</p>
<p>Some schools prepare kids for the SAT in their curriculum by giving SAT-like tests and teaching additional concepts in math class that might appear on the SAT.</p>
<p>Just because a school prepares kids for the SAT, it doesn't mean they aren't teaching the kids. Nor does it mean the school is "better" than the other kids. Nor does it mean the school is preparing kids better for college.</p>
<p>It just means the school has taken the time to alter their curriculum to lace in SAT concepts and help their students do better.</p>
<p>Trust me, I know some real idiots who have 2300+'s on the SATs. Aside from attending my school (where they do the said SAT prep stuff), they usually have also taken Kaplan, done way too many practice tests, and god knows what else.</p>
<p>The truth is, these tests show "reasoning" ability, but only within a range. The difference between getting a 2400 versus getting a 2050 is minimal.</p>
<p>"Trust me, I know some real idiots who have 2300+'s on the SATs."</p>
<p>There is no such thing as an idiot with a 2300 SAT score. If by "idiot," you mean a student with a low GPA, there are people like that with high SATs. However, they aren't idiots, just lazy, unmotivated students who aren't using their intellectual ability. Even though people might say otherwise, IMO, a 2300+ SAT score can't be bought. You need to have some intelligence to get that kind of score, even with prep classes.</p>
<p>"The difference between getting a 2400 versus getting a 2050 is minimal."</p>
<p>I still believe that once you're in the 600s on each section, it is dumb mistakes and the ambiguity of the hard questions that prevents you from getting an 800. However, there is a very noticeable difference between a 2400 and a 2050. A 2050 is a very good score that is within range for over 95% of colleges. A 2400 is the ultimate goal. One 800 is a hard enough feat (maybe not on CC, but in the real world). Triple perfection though, that's amazing.</p>
<p>I would say that there isn't much of a difference between a 2300 and a 2400Maybe even a score in the 2200s is comparable. A 2050 is pushing it though.</p>
<p>Candidate 1:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
1900 SAT</p>
<p>Candidate 2:
2.5 GPA
Top 50% of class
2200 SAT</p>
<p>Well your scenario is not really fair..
There's only a 15% difference in their SAT scores 1900-2200, and a 40% difference between a 2.5 and a 4.0. And a 45% difference in rank.
So you're twisting the figures by a factor of 3 to shift the argument to favour GPA importance. Now a proper example with equivalent differences in SAT and GPA would be
Candidate 1:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
1320 SAT - a decrease of 45%</p>
<p>Candidate 2:
2.5 GPA
Top 50% of class
2200 SAT</p>
<p>Now if I were a college, there'd be no way I'd pick Candidate 1. He may have a 4.0, but a 400 in each section shows that the candidate has an elementary at best grasp of basic english and math. He'd find it very difficult to keep up with college level reading.</p>
<p>The second person, would either be considered lazy or in a very tough school. Fifty-fifty of getting it right, but even if he was lazy back in HS, since the ability is there he can grow into it at college, whereas someone who just doesn't have the ability to read or do mathematics can't progress much further.</p>
<p>"Candidate 1:
4.0 GPA
Top 5% of class
1320 SAT - a decrease of 45%"</p>
<p>How many candidates in the top 5% of their class have 1320/2400 on the SAT? I'd say little to none. Some people don't test well, but a 1320 with a 4.0 is extremely rare. </p>
<p>If a decision came down to a straight A student with a 1900 and a B student with a 2200, I would probably take the 1900, assuming both applicants come from similar high schools. If the 2200 kid went to some sort of magnet school and the 1900 kid went to a subpar school, them my decision would be different.</p>
<p>High SAT scores are great to have. They show inherent intelligence and calmness under pressure. I still feel that GPA is more important since it reflects your work ethic over a long period of time. Employers don't want smart people who are lazy. They want smart people who work hard. Even if the lazy person has a higher IQ/SAT than the hard worker, the harder worker would be the one who gest the job.</p>
<p>"Sure, if you're talking about McDonald's."</p>
<p>No, I'm talking about the majority of businesses/companies. GPA is a reflection of your work. The SAT is a relection of your intelligence. Your job performance is based on your work ethic, not your brain cells. Sure, many rich people are rich because of their intelligence. The average SAT for a millionaire is 1190/1600, which is a bit above average, but isn't outstanding. Does everyone who attends an Ivy become rich? Not at all. My uncle's friend went to UPenn and is really smart. He makes an average salary and is still paying off student loans. </p>
<p>Koolcrud, I think the reason you put so much emphasis on SATs is because you have a 2310 and founded the "Uber-Exclusive 2300 Club."</p>
<p>At my school, many kids have great GPAs. However, there is a group of these highly ranked students in all non honors, non AP classes, and there is a group of highly ranked students that take mostly honors / AP classes. The kids in this group get much, much higher test scores than the kids in the first group. So I think in addition to course selection, test scores highlight the difference between kids who simply do all of their homework and kids who both have natural intelligence and a desire to push themselves academically.</p>
<p>Putting too much faith in the SAT is inane. My unweighted GPA is a 3.96 and I'm top in my class (thanks to extra points from AP classes). I got a 2090 on my best encounter with the SAT. I don't think it's fair to judge a student based on one or the other, but consideration SHOULD be given in instances where there is a large disparity between SAT score and GPA. Otherwise, it's foolish. I simply hate tests. I don't have the attention span, to be honest. I loathe history, but managed to get a 4 on US History and a 5 in Art History... yet my SAT II US History Score is a 670. To put so much faith into the SAT is foolish and I'd like to think that other factors - ESPECIALLY ECs - make the deciding difference between students with near perfect GPAs but somewhat different SAT scores.</p>