Depends what you mean by needed. I would say no, but qualify it by saying that the best system we currently have, where colleges have to evaluate great multitudes of applicants, is helped by the use of standardized tests. Some schools don’t want them, and seem to be going about just fine without them, but it does make evaluation more difficult. If an admissions board had large amounts of time for the investigation of each student, standardized tests might not be as useful. However, there really isn’t enough time for that, so they remain useful.</p>
<p>Now, being a socialist, I am quite perturbed by the large differences in scores between poor and rich students, but that is more the fault of the capitalistic system and failing schools. However, it does make me realize than there are complications in testing.</p>
<p>
That post certainly meant that there are some students that perform significantly worse on standardized tests than they otherwise perform in academia, but thank you for making me laugh.</p>
<p>They’re unfair because some people aren’t as smart as other people and they also get distracted easily. I almost failed my math test today because I kept thinking about how I was going to get ice cream after school. But then I remembered that I should be paying attention to my test and not thinking about cookies and cream.</p>
<p>Personally, I quite like the SAT (and other similar standardized tests). In my experience, it’s a much better gauge of intellectual promise than grades, rank, or GPA. You can’t grade-grub your way to a higher SAT score, and you can’t exactly “study” for it in a traditional sense. It helps separate the book-smart from the truly smart.</p>
<p>Actually Pioneer, you can study. And most kids who do well do study… a lot. Take the time management issue. Most kids do better if they have more time to answer the questions. Kids who have not studied or practiced lose a lot of time reading through and understanding the questions. Whereas kids who have practiced (or been coached), can skip the questions and just go straight to the answer choices. This is a huge advantage. Additionally, it is much easier to do well on all three of the sections if you have previously covered the material in your classes. Depending on what school you go to (or what teachers you have), you may have trouble on the SAT because the topics were not a part of the normal school curriculum or were simply taught poorly.</p>
<p>Allow me to qualify my statement: often times, all a student has to do in order to be successful in school (rank and GPA-wise) is memorize and regurgitate information. The SAT is not a test you can cram for. Sure, you can take it several times to familiarize yourself and become comfortable with its format. But beyond that, the SAT tests reasnoning ability, much more than it does knowledge. </p>
<p>I’ll concede, my judgment may be somewhat diluted by my academic atmosphere. It’s not uncommon at my school for someone in the top 2-3% of his class to have an SAT score below 2000.</p>
You could certainly argue that U.S. society as a whole is unfair based on the wide disparities in school quality. However, that doesn’t have anything with using standardized tests in college admissions, or as a graduation requirement. It may not be fair that some people are well-educated and/or naturally intelligent while others are poorly-educated and/or naturally unintelligent. But is level of education and/or natural intelligence relevant to the college admission process? Absolutely.</p>
<p>Let’s reexamine my swimming metaphor: it may not be fair that Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than I am. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a better swimmer. And if swimming ability is considered relevant in selecting, for example, the U.S. Swim Team, then our respective times for the 200m butterfly are relevant in that decision process.</p>
<p>Standardized tests are sure better than writing uber-subjective admissions essays. I would rather know that my fate is decided by my scores/numbers than some stupid essay that’s practically a complete crapshoot.</p>
Writing eloquently and thoughtfully is hardly “a complete crapshoot”. In fact, it is something that an applicant has complete control of, to the best of the applicant’s abilities. The essays show things that numbers do not. A person is more than a stat block, so essays are an important part of the application, as they should be, even if you don’t like them.</p>
<p>The problem is, at top schools, practically everyone writes eloquently and thoughtfully. Deciding who to select from some of the most skillful young writers in the country is quite a challenge and can be very subjective.</p>
Perhaps most of those admitted are eloquent and thoughtful writers, but it does not seem likely that “practically everyone” applying is an equally good writer.</p>
<p>
It is subjective, but a college knows what it’s looking for in a student, and essays help it find those students, even with subjective criteria. Plus, I would imagine that essays are distinct enough that admissions officers can generally choose the best writers, if that’s what they want.</p>
<p>I feel like this thread is missing something-I feel like there are a few different opinions as to what the SAT is actually used for (or worth taking to determine…did that make sense? Sorry. It’s late). </p>
<p>There is no one answer unless everyone agrees on what exactly the SAT determines (inherent intelligence? reasoning ability? qualifications for a specific school?).</p>