An alternative interpretation of SATs

<p>Hi all. I originally made this post in another forum, and another member suggested that I should replicate it in this forum, so here is my original post, which was made as a reaction to somebody lashing out against obsessing over standardized tests, suggesting that people who obsess over them don't have lives and don't know what is important in life:</p>

<hr>

<p>While I can understand ______'s frustrations with students excessively obsessing over SAT scores in these forums, let me provide an alternative interpretation of standardized test scores that's been in the back of my mind for the past couple of years. I'd love to know whether others share my opinions or dissent against them :)</p>

<p>To me, standardized tests mainly measure one thing: how well you have prepared for the material on the test and learned about the format, test-taking strategies, etc. Okay, many people tend to trivialize those skills, thinking, "oh well, but it doesn't really measure aptitude or intelligence or people skills or creativity or initiative, etc.", but I feel that what it does measure is important --- it measures how willing you are to 'eat your peas and brussel sprouts' and do something that isn't glamourous or enriching (studying for endless hours for mindless tests), simply because you need to do so to progress to the next step in your life (yes, SAT scores aren't everything in admissions, but given two equally-qualified candidates, I'd pick the one with the higher SAT scores).</p>

<p>Why is this 'eating your peas and brussel sprouts' skill important (in my opinion)? Because in the real world, unless you are the boss of yourself and of everyone around you, you WILL NEED to suck in your pride and do mundane, trite, boring, vapid, banal, etc. work, to jump through hoops, in order to do your job well and to situate yourself for advancement. It is idealistic to believe that the only things that matter for your life are personal passion, creativity, heart, ability/willingness to learn, interpersonal skills, independence, and all the other traits that modern Western culture values so dearly ... why? ... because you aren't the boss most of the time.</p>

<p>People who didn't study for their SATs and did marginally well are so proud of their accomplishments (they are the most proud people I've encountered with respect to SATs), because they felt like they did it on natural talent alone without having to resort to being a studying drone. On the other hand, people who did study a lot and did really well are made to feel ashamed and marginalized because of their high scores; they often don't want to share their accomplishments for fear that their friends will think that they are 'tools', 'mindless drones', or 'no-life nerds', etc. I find these trends disturbing, from the students that I've spoken to over the past few years.</p>

<p>SATs are one instance of simply having to buckle down and study for something that might be boring, difficult, annoying, etc., but a high score shows that a student has put forth that effort when he/she could be doing much more fun things (like eating gummi bears while skateboarding down the hill and posting the videos on youtube). I think that this show of effort is more important in the real world than most people realize. For example, if you are a manager, would you want your employees to always demand to do exactly what they want and never do things for the greater good of the team? If you give your employee an assignment, do you want him/her to not 'study up' on anything and simply wing-it on 'natural talent' alone and do a decent job, or do you want him/her to be diligent, eat the peas, and study the problem carefully, think a lot, and then create a better solution?</p>

<p>My advice to people who obsess over SAT scores: Just suck it up, eat your peas and brussel sprouts, and study for those tests and do the best you can, but at the same time, keep living your life and doing things you enjoy so that other people can't marginalize you as a nerd who only studies for SATs. If you do really freaking well on your SATs, you should be proud that your hard work and efforts paid off, and that's it. It should NOT be your claim to fame. There are many more people in the world like you :) But congrats, you've eaten your peas and swallowed.</p>

<p>My advice to people who are annoyed at people who obsess over SAT scores: Having high test scores and having good inter-personal skills, heart, charisma, etc. are NOT mutually-exclusive. It's not like you can't have both :) Please don't make people feel bad for putting effort into something for months and getting good results (e.g., in this culture, sports are considered much more sacred and more immune to criticism than academics ... for instance, if your child practiced basketball day and night and got really good and won all these games, you would feel deeply insulted if other people said that your child wasted his efforts because basketball skills aren't all that's important in life, etc. etc. etc.)</p>

<p>U know what. U make a lot of sense. Nice post!</p>

<p>very insightful</p>

<p>almost sounds like a college app essay =D</p>

<p>nice analogy, and I compeletely agree with you!</p>

<p>Hey, I like peas!
jk, great post!</p>

<p>I agree with your nicely argued essay for most CC posters, particularly students, but think that there are other dimensions to the SAT-pressure cooker scene:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>There are lots of low-income kids who don't even know that there are peas and brussel sprouts on the table that they should be eating, or where they keep the forks.</p></li>
<li><p>Lots of the "dial-the-pressure-down" dialogue that's going now is really aimed at college admissions officials. Given the current set-up, it's admirable for students to just buckle down and "eat those peas", but that doesn't mean that colleges and universities need to continue encouraging this diet if it doesn't line up with their educational mission.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>There's also the fact that your SAT score correlates much more strongly with your IQ, as opposed to GPA, a more traditional means of assessing work ethic.</p>

<p>SATs vaguely measures intelligence. There is a corelation between hours studied and score, but it levels off at some point, where extra studying does not help. For a smarter studnet, it will level off at a very high score. For a weaker student, it will level off not as high.</p>

<p>what about those students who DO study a lot and put in a ton of effort but still crumble under testing conditions?</p>

<p>i agree with what you have to say. the bad thing about the SAT is that some people have money to afford taking classes and other one to one tutoring that makes things easier and allows better scores, while some poor students have to study and work harder on their own. Some students that I know (foreign born) dont have the money to buy books and these things, so it might be an unfair advantage compared to richer children.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your insightful comments :)</p>

<p>I really liked the points about kids from underprivileged areas not having adequate access to preparation tools for these standardized tests. Great extension of my 'eating peas' analogy by MarathonMan88:</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. There are lots of low-income kids who don't even know that there are peas and brussel sprouts on the table that they should be eating, or where they keep the forks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I haven't thought much about the effects of income disparity on standardized testing, but I'll put that on my to-do list ...</p>

<p><a href="yes,%20SAT%20scores%20aren't%20everything%20in%20admissions,%20but%20given%20two%20equally-qualified%20candidates,%20I'd%20pick%20the%20one%20with%20the%20higher%20SAT%20scores">quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would take the one with a stronger EC/rec/essay. There are too many intangible factors in a 4-hour test; I don't believe that should determine the fate of a student.</p>

<p>Moreover, it's impossible for two students to be equally qualified in EC+essay+recs so I personally think that's a stronger benchmark.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>Should we even be using the SAT?</p>

<p>Visit: <a href="http://thesatdebate.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thesatdebate.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Post something. Voice your thoughts. Maybe we dont even need to be worrying about the SAT.</p>

<p>I would like to point out that there are people who study endlessly for the SAT but just cant do well.</p>

<p>From my experience with the SAT, it seems that the people who do well studied very hard when they were "pushed" by their parents in middle school, regardless of their studies in high school. I knew students who where great in middle school because of their parents, but who were lazy and got Ds in high school. But they still did well, >1400, on their SATs where as some where not so studious in middle school but were valedictorian of their high school but scored <1300. The SATs do not tests how hard one studies.</p>

<p>Which makes sense, since that's not what they were designed to measure. They're supposed to show how academically smart a student is. Of course, the PCness of our modern world has led us astray from this simple definition... How awful, some people might ACTUALLY be smarter than others...</p>