<p>The subject tests are indeed biased against extraordinary and hardworking students.
I've managed to earn high scores in subjects where I'm earning 3.5s, whereas my far more intelligent friends and colleagues are earning lower scores in the same subjects where they are earning 4.0s.</p>
<p>It's unusual and skewered that, with a 3.7 GPA range, I'm earning higher scores than my friends in the 3.9 GPA range. I am a dreadful student: however, I know how to take tests well, and my parents have burned thousands of dollars toward meaningless classes. Many people are not as well off as I am, and cannot afford such an upper hand.</p>
<p>Then again, the Academic Transcript is ALWAYS more important than the Standardized Testing History.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The way to prove that you're brilliant is not through the path of standardized testing. If you want to show that you really know your math, go do the USAMO or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the basic answer. You may think you are brilliant, but will anyone else believe you? (My thanks to a researcher on childhood giftedness who coined that phrase, with the word "gifted" in place of the word "brilliant.") There are plenty of ways to demonstrate brilliance that go beyond the standardized tests taken by tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, college applicants. Find your way to demonstrate brilliance, and you'll have no worry about test scores.</p>
<p>The OP shouldn't worry about an "unfair" 800. If he wanders into some of the truly rigorous Math/Science schools like MIT or CalTech, lots of folks will have 800s on their MathII. And still be struggling with the brutal problems set for some of the freshman courses.</p>
<p>Look, there's a point at which it's "good enough". An 800 SAT II says - this person is quite good at/knowledgeable at this. But don't forget it's also a sample. A different day, a different version of the test, the student might miss one question. Just one! But he's still very, very good at this. That's why it's done with a curve and percentile. </p>
<p>A track record of achievement is far more predictive that a single day sample.</p>
<p>Quote:
"The way to prove that you're brilliant is not through the path of standardized testing. If you want to show that you really know your math, go do the USAMO or something.
This is the basic answer. You may think you are brilliant, but will anyone else believe you? (My thanks to a researcher on childhood giftedness who coined that phrase, with the word "gifted" in place of the word "brilliant.") There are plenty of ways to demonstrate brilliance that go beyond the standardized tests taken by tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, college applicants. Find your way to demonstrate brilliance, and you'll have no worry about test scores."</p>
<p>Tokenadult: I have no reason to disagree with you. But you have shifted the focus of my argument. I want to know why is college board following such a policy (please read above comments for understanding what the policy is)? AND I DO AGREE THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE NOT THE MEASURE OF BRILLIANCE. </p>
<p>Yeah, I do want to prove my academic brilliance. But as far as doing USAMO is concerned it is impossible since I am neither US citizen nor permanent resident. I am Pakistani citizen and have been home schooled student since 9th grade. And I will really appreciate any suggestions about how to prove my brilliance.</p>
<p>Quoting chaucers_pal: "The OP shouldn't worry about an "unfair" 800. If he wanders into some of the truly rigorous Math/Science schools like MIT or CalTech, lots of folks will have 800s on their MathII. And still be struggling with the brutal problems set for some of the freshman courses.</p>
<p>Look, there's a point at which it's "good enough". An 800 SAT II says - this person is quite good at/knowledgeable at this. But don't forget it's also a sample. A different day, a different version of the test, the student might miss one question. Just one! But he's still very, very good at this. That's why it's done with a curve and percentile.</p>
<p>A track record of achievement is far more predictive that a single day sample."</p>
<p>Well, I agree that 800 on math II shows that person is good enough. But if college board equates 43 raw score out of 50 to 700 then 700 can be called good enough and in addition excellent students will not be at disadvantage. And with regard to getting one question wrong, I think it's a relevant point. However, I wouldn't have made all this fuss if college board had given 800 only to those students who get a raw score of 49 or 50. I think raw score of 43 out of 50 is just to low for "perfect" score.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why can't college board apply the same reasoning in SAT I mathematics section. Does college board considers 54 out of 54 correct in SAT I excellent whereas considers in M level II 43 out of 50 excellent? If so why this arbitrariness?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Math section on the SAT I has much easier and more basic questions. Also, it does not depend on knowledge as much as the SAT II does. The SAT II is less about potential than it is about talent and knowledge in a particular subject.</p>
<p>June: very easy IIc test, and many people get 50/50. Clearly, they get 800's.
October: a much harder IIc test & getting a 46/50 is harder than getting a 50/50 on the June one. </p>
<p>I feel the 46/50's in October deserve the same 800's as the 50/50's in June.</p>
<p>Also, 9,857 of college bound seniors in 2007 got 800's in math, about 0.66%. I don't think that's comparable to 269 people getting 800's in all three subjects.</p>
<p>I agree with the OP to some extent. I don't understand why the collegeboard scales the tests in such a way, but I don't particularly mind either, as I think I may have been on the lower end of an 800 on a few of those tests.</p>
<p>Hi, FAIZANZUBAIR, following up on your reply to my last post, I'll say that the most likely reason the SAT II tests are scored the way they are is a HISTORICAL reason--as is true of so many features of daily life that seem illogical. SAT scores are supposed to be comparable from one test session to the next, </p>
<p>which is best explained as a policy applying to the SAT I, and that means that whatever the scoring standards were many years ago set what a standard score level is today. Very likely back when I went to high school one had to do much better on the item content, perhaps perfectly, to get a score of 800 on what was then called an SAT Achievement Test. Changes over time in the self-selected group of students who take the tests at all and in how they prepare may change what item-content score today gets an 800, but that still means that the assumption is that the same test-taker would have received an 800 way back when, so an 800 score is still impressive.</p>
<p>To tokenadult: At least you agree with me the scaling system of SAT II is illogical. To me that the current scaling system is to make the current scores comparable to the scores of the students 5 years back is implausible. I don't think students five years back will be affected in any way if college board now changes the policy. Or At least college board can base the percentiles on the raw scores so the lower 800 can be distinguished from upper 800. </p>
<p>To nyneve: I feel you rightly pointed out that I was using the wrong comparison. But your hypothetical situation is certainly hypothetical because what you have hypothesized doesn't happen in reality. Due to differences in the difficulty levels of the test the required raw score for 800 varies from 41 to 45 and I am very sure that the raw score of 45 guarantees the 800 on any test.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel that there is no need for college board to report scaled scores. Percentiles based on raw scores is what think would be better.</p>
<p>OP: If SAT II's were reported as a percentage score, how would a "no mistakes" student then distinquish himself from other students with perfect scores who may have made a lucky guess on a couple of questions?</p>
<p>Well that's the limitation of multiple choice format of SAT I & II. However, there are only 20% chances of lucky student getting one "unsure" question right, 4% chances of two unsure question correct. Such a minute difference can be ignored, but difference of 5-10 questions would be too significant to ignore. In any case "no mistake" student will prefer being grouped with 10's of lucky student to being grouped with 500's of "some mistakes" student.</p>
<p>TO DTEX50: I do not claim to be the supreme arbitrator who will decide which difference is significant and which difference is minute although certainly agree that difference between 790 and 800 is inconsequential.</p>
<p>Assume two students one got raw score of 43 and the other 50. Both got so-called "scaled score" of 800. Isn't it unfair to the student who get raw score of 50?
There are certain limitations of Standardized tests:-
1) On different days same student performs differently
2) luck comes into play due to guessing
3) The SAT II subject tests test a limited quantity of syllabus. For example if I do not Know Entropy while I am appearing for chemistry test and the question relating to entropy doesn't appear then I get an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>And there are other limitations as well. These inadequacies will remain whichever system of scaled score college board applies. Even with the current method a student who does first 42 questions right and runs out of time and guesses the 43rd question he gets 800. Thus the luck factor is always there.</p>
<p>To make sure the lucky ones don't get an unfair advantage you wish others innocent students to be disadvantaged. And what is intriguing about your argument is that even by wishing drawbacks to these "no mistake" students you are unable to eliminate the luck factor.</p>
<p>OP:I really do understand. You didn't lose any points on the test you took on that day and want some recognition for that accomplishment. What you got was sort of like the 1st place winner having to share the gold medal with, if I read you correctly, inferior competion. If you received any documentation from ETS showing your raw score, maybe you could include that with your college applications. I really would not worry too much about all of this.</p>
<p>I just have to say this.........you think the SAT II marking system is unfair - look at the edexcel A level system.
Both the guy who gets a 481/600 and the guy who gets a 600/600 get an A!
And the unis never get to see your actual score - only your grade.</p>
<p>I quite agree that Edexel A' level system is quite inequitable. I wish the results of all internationally recognized exams/tests were reported as percentiles but alas.</p>