<p>Learn from it and talk about it, if you like; but to add to the article, I think collegeboard.com and the SATs should have been emphasized as a scams too. SATs are overrated for the wrong reasons, and people tend to waste their time and money on these tests.</p>
<p>They are necessary because they are a standard that all students can be judged with. Of course the GPA, class list, rank, and recommendations are important, but these vary wildly from high school to high school. The SATs are a method of standardization where students can directly show what they know.</p>
<p>kheryn, standardized tests are very important.
Why should someone who isnt that smart go to a top school. Just because they have a great gpa, doesnt mean that they are smart. Not all schools are the same difficulty. The amount of effort i have to put in to get a 3.5 at my school is as hard as i would have to work to get a 4.0 at most other schools in my district.</p>
<p>BIGTWIX: No, GPA doesn't equal intelligence; usually, it means great work ethic.</p>
<p>I know a girl who... well, tends to be pretty slow at times. But damn it, she works hard - always has, always will. I think she deserves to go to a better school than most people I know because of that.</p>
<p>There are geniuses who waste their intelligence away because of laziness; and there are people like my classmate who will change the world because of how hard they work.</p>
<p>Firstly, I didn't say it validly predicted how well you'll learn in college. That's just its stated purpose.</p>
<p>Secondly, the scores are split by section for a reason. The SAT Math section isn't meant to predict how well you'll do in history. (However, there is a correlation between SAT Math scores and higher performance in liberal arts majors, and SAT Reading scores and performance in engineering/hard science majors.)</p>
<p>The reason this question tests your ability to learn new math is that it takes baseline concepts everyone taking the test is expected to know and asks you to reason abstractly using them. The test as a whole shows how well you can apply known information to solve problems.</p>
<p>Intelligence shouldn't be the only factor in admissions. Passion, work ethic, and character are all necessary to be the ideal student.</p>
<p>However, intelligence is important, and the SAT is one of the most effective ways to measure intelligence without the influence of other variables.</p>
<p>There are issues such as tutoring, etc., but tutoring programs don't really provide much of an advantage over studying from a 19.95 book on your own.</p>
<p>When you enroll into an SAT prep course, it isn't much different from studying out of a book. Its more of a motivation issue, I think. At the school, you have to study and do your homework</p>
<p>it is the only test that is completely and utterly standardized. With all the flaws that come with it, colleges benefit from having something empirical with which to judge their students. That said, I do respect what Reed and Sarah Lawrence are doing.</p>
<p>Its standardized, nothing else is, which is why its important.</p>
<p>Plus, if you want to go to biz school, law school, med school, grad school, be in the securities industry, etc. you might as well get used to standardized tests.</p>
<p>I think that the SAT is largely a necessary evil. Working hard is nice, but a lot of people work hard in this world...that doesn't mean that they can handle the academics at a top school. Colleges already take into account an applicant's background and adjust their score expectations that way...is it perfect? No. </p>
<p>Kheryn, quite frankly, that's the type of math question that any potential applicant to a top tier school should be able to answer, whether or not they are going to take math in college. That's how the SAT is...not that someone should be able to answer every or almost every question correctly to show that they are prepared for high level college work, but barring those with learning disabilities and taking into account background differences, an applicant should be able to come within striking difference of a college's SAT range to show that they are capable of doing the work.</p>
<p>Oh man, I'm getting confused with who I'm speaking to and where. Maybe I shouldn't have posted two topics after all. </p>
<p>jbruner: They split the sections, yes; but when people brag about their score, they add everything together, don't they? Also, it isn't very fair when people have gone to SAT Prep just to learn how to answer this question, and the average person who hasn't gone to SAT Prep probably wouldn't know how... Which is why SAT does NOT measure a person's intelligence.</p>
<p>I know a genius who practically failed the SAT. People who know how to take the SAT do extremely well - it doesn't matter how intelligent you are.
I also live in a place where a 19.95 book is certainly something that's for the wealthy. That goes to you as well, -Lurker-. </p>
<p>VertigoFrog: I also respect what SLC and Reed are doing. I think it's progressive and hopefully wil bring change and destroy the flaws.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: Believe me - I'm not going to a biz school, law school, med school, grad schoool, etc. Not everyone will.</p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence may afford to disregard SAT scores. Big schools that receive tens of thousands of applications? Logistics demands the existence of such tests. Though sometimes I think it might be better to use Asian-style knowledge-based exams instead of SATs...</p>
<p>I only half buy the argument that the SAT does not measure intelligence. 2400 kids might not genuises, but they are certainly intelligent. Perhaps there is a certain small percentage of students who simply do not perform well on the standardized tests, but that's not the majority of students, in my opinion. I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb when I say that very, very, very, very few people who score a 21 ACT or 1500 SAT are geniuses. </p>
<p>Many students at top tier schools--the majority, I'll wager--DO continue on to grad school, though. Many professions require it or make it very lucrative.</p>
<p>Edit: Ray brings up a good point: big schools just cannot practically get rid of SAT's. Any other method that would allow schools with tens of thousands of applicants to efficiently evaluate their applicants would be MORE instead of less unfair to the applicants.</p>