<p>
</p>
<p>Tutors are an advantage for high school grades too. Indeed, tutors can often do high school assignments for a wealthy but lazy student. But students generally have to show up in person to take the SAT, which makes the SAT more of an equal basis of comparison than high school grades.</p>
<p>honestly, tutors do not help any more than the self-prep books anyone can check out from the library.</p>
<p>^^I definitely think it depends on the tutor…I think having xiggi as my own personal tutor would certainly be helpful</p>
<p>I qualified that statement, though, because I believe that tutors aren’t an incredible advantage to rich kids, more of a small one. I realize that tutors don’t really make that much of a difference in test scores, and you make a good point; tutors can do work but they can’t take the test.
I think tutors who are familiar with the test can help kids learn to pace themselves, or maybe show them ways to solve commonly asked questions, but that only takes you so far.</p>
<p>Also, tutors can’t save your scores because a lot of stuff on the SAT is stuff students should have learned their whole lives. I know plenty of people who go to classes and buy the three-inch-thick books and pay lots of money, and they still score poorly, particularly on the reading section. Why? Because reading comprehension isn’t something you can memorize, it’s not a formula. It’s something you’ve been practicing and learning since you learned to read. I score well on the reading section because I read a lot, all the time, for fun, and I study writing. My friends who don’t score well on reading all want to know how I can score so well without studying. Studying isn’t the point. Want to score an 800? Pick up a novel.</p>
<p></p>
<p>tokenadult, it’s interesting that you mention that Tufts is actually adding other tests to the mix. Are the colleges trying to “diversify” by looking more and more to APs, SAT IIs, and IB test scores? The funny thing is, that at least in our neck of the woods, the public schools are the ones that offer the broadest selection in these types of programs. And the wealthiest don’t usually partake (however, the really smart ones, do) ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The colleges cited studies … blah blah and more blah blah. The only study Smith College needed was one that evaluated the way colleges have gone up and down by playing the SAT reporting game. After all, the successful creative reporting practices of Middlebury that resulted into up and downs in the USNews rankings are not that hard to spot.</p>
<p>The reality is that Smith College has been sinking in the rankings as it becomes harder and harder to maintain a high Peer Assessment (especially one that is questionable) without a semblance of supporting data. The other reality is that the school has to admit more and more students and go deeper in the admission pool to fill its classes. This results in an inability to land enrolled students with higher statistics. </p>
<p>Without the gimmck of dropping of making the SAT optional, the chances that Smith would remain in the first category on the USNews or in the second group of CollegeHelp would go from slim to none. </p>
<p>From a thread started by Collegehelp:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/563455-most-selective-colleges-based-sats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/563455-most-selective-colleges-based-sats.html</a></p>
<h2>
</p>
<p>And the Second Group
</p>
<p>That’s true, nd09, in fact the SAT will likely retain its significance until USNAWR decides to drop SATs from its ranking system. Until then, a college here and there dropping the SAT will have little to no effect.</p>
<p>^ I think just the opposite is true. As long as US News continues to place a lot of weight on SATs in its ranking formula, it will create pressure for more schools to go SAT-optional. Going SAT-optional could affect a school’s US News ranking in a couple of ways. First, it might attract a larger applicant pool, as kids who previously thought they wouldn’t have a chance based on their low SAT scores decide to give it a shot; this boosts the school’s “selectivity.” Second, SAT-optional schools will continue to receive SAT scores from applicants with SAT scores at or above the school’s published medians; applicants below the medians will by and large refrain from reporting their SAT scores. That means when it comes time to report the SAT scores of admitted students, the school will have only the higher scores to report, its reported medians will go up, and so will its US News ranking. You won’t see this at the top of the food chain, but I agree with xiggi, for a school like Smith it’s a no-brainer.</p>
<p>WONDERFUL!! I’m glad they FINALLY figured out that the sat stands for: “stupid, atrocious, and terrible.” I wish they would’ve freaking figured this out oh but 2 years ago so i could’ve gotten into better schools with a good gpa and a nonexistent sat score…</p>
<p>Tufts requirements: </p>
<p>[Requirements</a> - First Year Applicants - Office of Undergraduate Admissions - Tufts University](<a href=“Tufts University”>Tufts University)</p>
<p>I like the SAT, it’s kind of any equalizer.</p>
<p>It is ridiculous to not consider standardized testing in college admissions.</p>
<p>It’s almost like that colleges want to turn the whole admissions process into a popularity contest. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I hope that U.S News simply counteracts this by weighting SAT averages even more- let’s see what Harvard has to say about that then!</p>
<p>This actually does a disservice to highly intelligent lower-class and middle-class people.
Those who are great at taking standardized tests, show a high level of intelligence, but don’t know much about the whole process- they don’t have the same opportunities to take on extracurricular after extracurricular to be admitted to colleges.
These highly intelligent teenagers could come from families who don’t emphasize education much, so they don’t put much effort into their schoolwork as their more ambitious, grade-grubbing, less intelligent peers. Seriously, who wants to encourage such self-centered behavior anyway? </p>
<p>I know of people who got 1550 or higher on the SAT who didn’t spend even a dollar on tutoring or test prep.</p>
<p>If private tutoring is such a problem with test scores, why don’t we simply block test scores by income and work on an economics-based affirmative action? Why don’t schools start becoming a little more generous with financial aid and get the people who actually deserve the top-notch education? </p>
<p>I think Ivies and other ‘elite schools’ should start just accepting the top 15-20% (in terms of SAT scores) from each income bracket, build up a massive wait-list, and see what happens. They will get the people they deserve.</p>
<p>drop that sucker!</p>
<p>lol. that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, unfortunately.</p>
<p>Going SAT optional does not mean they wont use your scores. What it means is that they wont necessarily penalize you. They are looking at the whole student, and WRITING ability is a key component of success in college. </p>
<p>SAT tests an ability to take a standardized test, which is not the same as native intelligence. It does NOT measure creativity. In fact, creativity works against you in taking the exam as such people often contemplate different alternatives. </p>
<p>Harvard will always get the creme de la creme. There wont be an onslaught of mediocrity at most schools. But it does point out that a lot of kids with higher SAT’s often were shallow and just good test takers. Hard working creative kids with great writing skills are just as likely to graduate Phi Beta Kappa as some kid with a 1600 SAT.</p>
<p>The people who want to maintain the SAT are the braggadocios who did well and got into an elite school, so they can parade around the rest of their lives believing they are more deserving and smarter than the next guy. </p>
<p>Some of those “smart alecs” eventually made their way to the CEO’s offices, board rooms and on WallStreet. We see what that got us, didnt we?</p>
<p>SAT/ACT isn’t the best way to measure someone’s readiness for college, but there isn’t really much of an alternative. Think about it, a mediocre student will NEVER get a 2300+/35+ on these tests, there’s a limit in the higher ranges. Top schools want intelligent and distinguished students. A perfect score on these tests means both of these, yes even the intelligent part.</p>
<p>Without an objective measure, like the SAT, the admissions process will become 100% pure subjective BS, as opposed to mostly subjective BS, which is where things stand today. Adcoms will be even more free to indulge their amatuer anthropological interests in constructing incoming classes as there will be no way to differentiate an A at a grade inflated pass-them-through crap school with an A from a highly competive school having a rigorous curriculum. There was an interesting study out of New York comparing the performance of incoming classes at like schools which had more and less stringent SAT requirements. Guess what? It turns out that the SAT is a good predictor of college success afterall. And when you eliminate or deempasize the test, graduation rates and other indicia of academic success suffer. But who cares so long as the adcoms can indulge their interest in social engineering, at the expense of admitting the most qualified applicants.</p>
<p>“cited studies that the test favors wealthier students”</p>
<p>If that’s the case, colleges should stop evaluating applicants’ extracurricular activities too.</p>
<p>“I score well on the reading section because I read a lot, all the time, for fun, and I study writing. My friends who don’t score well on reading all want to know how I can score so well without studying. Studying isn’t the point. Want to score an 800? Pick up a novel.”</p>
<p>I know I’m deviating from the topic of this thread (sorry), and am probably ‘preaching to the choir’ given the level of literacy of those on this website, as well, but I think I have discovered something. I have a feeling that to get an 800 on the SAT cr, you may have to have been reading at minimum a couple of hours A DAY since first grade and on thru 8th grade. After that, I suspect, you can drop down to 20 minutes a day or maybe eliminate recreational reading altogether without impacting your reading comprehension. </p>
<p>Just a hunch based on my personal experiences and observations and comments made by students on this website, but I think I’m right. In which case, there are droves of young kids in our society staring at tv shows which deliver a double whammy: don’t offer much of educational value, and lure them from recreational reading with probable long-term negative effects on their reading comprehension.</p>
<p>This could be a research study!</p>
<p>Absolutely true, ivydreamin. I attribute my 800 CR to my lifetime as an avid reader, nothing more. I did not study vocab, nor did I cram classics months before the test, I simply read a lot throughout my entire life because I loved it and it paid off. I think reading comprehension and close reading skills are developed over time (especially in early years) and then built on with difficult reading, so if you have good basics from childhood, the SAT CR section isn’t difficult at all.</p>
<p>i got 800 reading. the summer after 8th grade i actually read over 2 hours a day because I had nothing better to do. prior to that I read about 1 hour per day each summer. but during the school year, which was 75% of my childhood, i did minimal reading. in conclusion, i would consider recreational reading to be helpful but not a prerequisite for success.</p>