<p>This is for Spartan:</p>
<p>It's fairly annoying that someone will come onto a thread like this, possessing a highfalutin sense of intellectual superiority, and start to attack the very idea of studying for the SAT. There's certainly nothing wrong with studying for the SAT, and if someone's sense of academic entitlement is offended by the idea that studying might be effective, so be it. </p>
<p>The idea that a test should only reveal innate aptitude reflects a grab-bag of pseudoscientific assumptions. Spartan, why do you think that some singular, immutable "aptitude" has to exist, anyway? Why do you view it as a crime against the system when someone tries to better his score? Why do you demand that SAT results fit your narrow view of "aptitude", and why are you so entranced by the idea of rewarding the lazy but "intelligent"?</p>
<p>Anticipating your inevitable question, I am not a disgruntled poor scorer on the SAT. Until this June, the only time that I had taken the SAT was in middle school, when I was 12. I took the test on a whim and scored a 1570, which is considerably higher than any middle school score that I've seen on this forum. However, apparently unlike you, I recognized the SAT for what it is: a test that fairly narrowly measures analytical skills and test-taking speed, a test that, while not entirely meaningless, does not come close to reflecting the broad range of traits that contribute to a successful college career. "Intelligence" comes in many forms, such as practical, creative, and analytical. A person is not academically superior simply because he is talented in the domain of intelligence that the SAT happens to test, or because he is a skilled test-taker. You have no right to criticize the hard work of a strong student because you believe that the effort itself is somehow improper.</p>