<p>The SAT obviously isn't perfect, and there will always be outliers who flunk out with a 2400 or succeed with below a 1000, as your cousin did. However, the SAT is a decent predictor of success in college (better than weighted GPA, unweighted GPA, class rank, and income level) and so colleges use them as a part of a holistic process to find the best applicants.</p>
<p>Dennis,
I have noticed from your other posts that you have a keen interest in Law School. As you undoubtedly know, the LSAT has a major impact on a law school application, arguably more than an SAT does for undergraduate admissions. Are you contending as well that the LSAT has no value?</p>
<p>Jbruner17, must you repeat that offensive G.W. Bush phrase? I have no idea what he meant, and I'm a reasonable guy. Bigotry is bigotry. That's where he should have started.</p>
<p>Columbia Has Heop?</p>
<p>Are U Kidding Me?</p>
<p>The correlation (between SAT and GPA) obviously isn't 100%, otherwise nobody would argue against it. So the Columbia example doesn't really say much, other than that the SAT was a poor metric for that specific person (not the entire population).</p>
<p>The SAT's are a good metric because;
While all geniuses may not ace them, there are no dumb people getting incredibly high scores.</p>
<p>People will tell you that it favors the rich because they can afford tutors and prep courses. It does favor the rich, but not because they can afford something that anyone can read in a $20 book.</p>
<p>Affluent kids will tend to do well on the SAT because of the (presumably) nurturing environment that they grew up. Usually, the parents of these kids are intelligent, and that is conveyed to their children both genetically, and through environmental factors (spending 18 years with them). The enhanced performance of kids who grew up in this sort of environment is reflected not only by the SAT, but by GPA as well. </p>
<p>Monozygotic (identical/same genes) twin studies have been done, where one was raised in an affluent environment, while the other wasn't. Even in the absence of SAT prep, those raised in such an environment perform better on standardized tests, and in school. This is simply because of the environment they were raised in.</p>
<p>Does the SAT favor the rich? Yes. But SAT's are the tip of the iceberg of where the rich are favored (and that's just in the world of college admissions)</p>
<p>I'm just tired of people saying that students in wealthy suburbs do better on standardized tests BECAUSE OF test prep. Does test prep help? Sure. But it is far from being the sole factor in their greater testing success.</p>
<p>Genetics is by far the biggest factor in standardized test performance.</p>
<p>i dont think that is a generalization you can make about gpa. GPA doesnt necessarily show great work ethic if you go to a super easy school. At my school to get above a 4.5, you will likely be working 4-6 hrs a day at least on homework and projects and studying.</p>
<p>Yeah, GPA depends a lot on grade inflation or lack thereof at the school. That's why class rank is important.</p>
<p>Look I realize that the SAT is important and for now the only form of indicator, but still do you really believe that it's the best indicator.Are there any alternative means ? </p>
<p>Look not to bash the SAT, I did well but there are others that I feel bad for who have really high GPAs and do not do well on the SAT.I attend a school in NYC that costs about 30k a year after expenses. I am hispanic and it seems to me that my other fellow hispanics just dont do as high as the majority of the white people who attend the school. We all have the same grades but at the end of the day it seems the white people just do much better. I am not making this a racial issue but I just dont get it, and we are well off hispanics since we pay 30k a year to attend a school. </p>
<p>Example (both are my bestfriends)
Friend 1 ( Hispanic Male) 96 GPA : 1650 SAT
Friend 2 ( White Male) 94 GPA : 2020 SAT</p>
<p>Both have good grades but thier SAT score differs to an extreme. I am not complaining but I am confused , please explain?</p>
<p>I am not sure, Dennis. There are many theories about the "achievement gap" between the races. One theory is that minority students are generally expected to do less well in school and on tests such as these, and that these expectation translate into a poorer performance. This could explain a situation such as your own, where even ecomonically advantaged minority students perform below their white classmates. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it is my honest belief that the answer to your question "Is there not a better way than the SAT?" is usually no. Small, "alternative" schools such as Reed and Sarah Lawrence have the ability to change their admissions procedures because they get relatively few applicants (in absolute numbers). On the other extreme, a school like, say, the University of Illinios, which gets 22000 applications and does not have private school resources or desire to do holistic application reviews, is simply not going to be able to throw the ACT out of their application process. Being that the SAT has okay predictive abilities, is standardized, and is relatively easy to somewhat fairly evaluate, despite it's imperfectios, I don't currently see a better option.</p>
<p>The expectation^ "theory" you mention has been proven, in a recent psychology experiement. They gave two randomly selected groups of black students the same test. One group was informed that the test was just a preliminary research tool, while other was told that it was an SAT type test, which black students typically score lower on. In the end, those who took the test as if it were an insignificant research tool significanty outscores those who believed that they were taking an SAT type test, ON THE SAME TEST!</p>
<p>the issue I think with the SATs is the fact that its cost rather than its predictive abilities.</p>
<p>The SAT does not have to cost $40. Nor does changing your SAT location have to cost an additional $20, unless the tests have been ordered. Nor should you have to pay an extra fee to change, subtract, or add one of the subject tests you're taking if you do so, since they're all from the same book anyway.</p>
<p>The College Board is a cash cow. There should be a way to test students' aptitudes efficiently without exorbitant costs.</p>
<p>While I agree that the SAT is a cash cow, truly economically disadvantage students are able to request a fee waiver. I know that those processes are often difficult and that sometimes fee waivers are not awarded to those who may need them (or those students who never think/are too proud to ask), but technically, cost should not be a factor. I am sure that in reality, it does pay a role, but I would think that it is a secondary factor to the other mentioned problems that lead to score gaps.</p>
<p>My main problem with the SAT is the strict time limitations. There are numerous, smart kids that don't do well because they didn't have enough time. They are the type who considers things from various angles and are a bit slower. Same can be said for LD kids. </p>
<p>Expand the time available so that the vast majority of kids should have more than enough time to finish the test, and I think the test would have more validity.</p>
<p>When they talk about the achievement gap between whites/asians and hispanics/black on the SATS (such that the SAT isn't indicative of what the hispanic/black student can fully achieve) I find it interesting that they pinpoint race as the factor. There is a lurking variable, a none too subtle one, and that would be income.</p>
<p>i dont even think class rank is too indicative in many cases. My highschool is one of the top 25 publics in Northern California, and rank doesnt mean anything here. A 4.0 (weighted) puts you in the top 15%, cause pretty much everyone at my school is pretty smart. about 60% of my class has above a 3.2 and work here is tough. We are likely going to have the IB program by fall 2008 (which sucks because i will have graduated.</p>
<p>Taxguy, timing is an indication of intelligence. Multi-faceted perception is useful but so is quick recognition of simple solutions. Not to say the SATs measure intelligence well, but a crunchy pace does not necessarily detract from the test. And frankly, the SATs are hardly that bad when it comes to time.</p>
<p>Simply put, it's a whole lot easier and quicker to take two students and give them some numbers (GPA, SAT, et.c) to sort them by than to actually look at their essays and try and determine in the applicant is what the college is looking for.</p>
<p>Score are not everything. I really don't like this list or the Top High Schools list, because they put too much emphasis on numbers and established reputations. When they decided to restructure the rankings, Caltech jumped from 4 to 1. The next year, Caltech was back to #4. For high schools, my school doesn't even show up on the list because we don't offer a single AP. And yet, Oprah and Bill Gates came to visit us. How many of those AP-filled high schools can say that? </p>
<p>I'm pretty damn sure that plenty of the colleges sending me brochures and packets don't care if I get admitted to their college. As long as I apply, my NM PSAT says I should be able to give them a high SAT score to send off to USNWR to boost their rankings.</p>
<p>All of the people who are saying that wealth unfairly advantages one when taking the SATs are completely wrong. Expensive SAT prep courses are absolutely useless, especially when preparation can be found elsewhere for free. For further evidence, read this article:</p>
<p>If a poor person performs poorly on a standardized test, his/her performance does not lie with a lack of preparation. And yes, I do second jbruner's comment that "Genetics is by far the biggest factor in standardized test performance." Granted, it's hard for many people to accept, but it's probably true. Genetic factors combined with environmental ones determine general intelligence (each one accounts for approximately half), and thus SAT scores (which are based largely, but not entirely, on intelligence). Actually, jbruner's wrong in that genetics is "by far" the biggest factor; environmental conditions are just as important.</p>
<p>Extracurriculars and essay writing ability are factors far more likely to be influenced by wealth than SAT scores. The SAT is, contrary to what some are saying, the great equalizer. Look back to the 1920s; there was no standardized college aptitude test, and most Ivy Leagues simply relied on legacy factors, physical aptitude, and even attractiveness in admissions. You should all be glad that the SAT is as important as it is, because without it, very few of us, and even fewer of the very poor, would have so much as a chance at elite institutions.</p>