<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a good point. It’s quite expensive to pursue some extracurricular activities that are noteworthy to colleges.</p>
<p>Last year WPI went SAT optional. The effects were: </p>
<ol>
<li> Big increase in yield, especially among internationals.<br></li>
<li> Slightly lower median SAT score (I think 10-20 points on CR+M)</li>
<li> More applicants, I think.<br></li>
<li> Higher median GPA.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Very few kids actually choose to not submit SAT scores, for obvious reasons (namely that one is not penalized for sending them, and WPI isn’t a big enough school that one could avoid taking the SATs). </p>
<p>So I have the sneaking suspicion that downplaying the SATs (or making them optional) is done to: </p>
<ol>
<li> Get attention</li>
<li> Encourage borderline-qualified students to apply by making the standards more ambiguous</li>
</ol>
<p>Umm, but at my school, the AP courses are harder than the APs at other schools in our area, so most get Bs but receive 5s on the AP exam. Isn’t it a bit unfair to say that grades are more accurate? I think GPA and SAT are both good indicators. I mean, I see a slight correlation between grades and SATs. Most often, those who are part of the top 10% of their class tend to have higher SAT scores than those who aren’t. However, the students at the top 10% may have lower weighted GPAs than the students at other schools because their courses are more rigorous. I kind of babbled on, but yeah…</p>
<p>I like the idea behind the SAT, but it’s not doing its job. The point of it is to be an equalizer obviously. It does a lot of kids whose gpa or class rank might be bad because of a rigorous courseload. I see the reason behind it and I think there needs to be some kind of test that measures academic potential, but in my opinion the SAT just doesn’t do it. Actually I think the SAT is downright ridiculous. Being able to do tricky math problems, learn grammar rules, and answer amibious reading comprehension questions does not show that you can handle college level work. I don’t care what anyone says.</p>
<p>The grades in my school are severely deflated- Good grades are earned, but it involves going to class each day and carrying about a year long impersonation of George Bush. You have to speak in a way that fools everyone else into thinking that you know what your talking about, and you have to act like you care.</p>
<p>GPA= Unreliable. I know quite a number of students that stay up til 4-5 AM just to be perfect on their Homeworks. Hard working? Yes. Good indication of common sense and social skills? Not exactly.</p>
<p>Well, at least there will be parity at schools since they will all be accepting the same 4.0 applicant who still can’t get above a 1200 on their SAT. Oh wait, that’s a bad thing and will make schools like harvard and yale filled with people who aren’t naturally talented and therefore make them worse schools.</p>
<p>If the SAT is losing steam, then wouldn’t the ACT be as well?</p>
<p>EDIT: nevermind</p>
<p>@Claire…SAT reading questions are anything but ambiguous. They might seem ambiguous to those with poor reading skills, but that’s the whole point of the section: to test reading skills.</p>
<p>edit: i was assuming that by “amibious” you meant “ambiguous”</p>
<p>If the SAT/ACT’s are removed how do we separate students from one another, a 4.0 which can easily be obtained at an inner city high school will be worth as much as a 4.0 which takes much more work and intelligence to be obtained at a tough public school or private school…</p>
<p>I don’t think that SATs should ever become meaningless, for the plethora of reasons already mentioned here. Neither should they be used as “cutoffs” or sole factors in admission.</p>
<p>I cringe at all this talk about wealthy people scoring better. I can’t believe people so blindly attribute this to parents “buying” good SAT scores through tutors and expensive test prep. No it’s actually pretty simple.</p>
<p>Wealthy people are, ON AVERAGE, smarter than lower class people. Jobs that provide a higher wage generally require more mental ability, such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. These people then have children who will inherit that higher intelligence.</p>
<p>I got an 800 on CR and I honestly haven’t read novels for fun in years. I do, though, write very frequently. For at least an hour a day (on average). The SAT’s CR may be flawed, but don’t reduce it to a librarian’s reading contest. And in terms of reading, it depends on how you read, not on what you read, that ultimately determines your reading capabilities. That is, if anything besides DNA actually has any effect at all.</p>
<p>I must disagree with you, dontno.</p>
<p>Your post rests on a myriad of assumptions.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Do we know that SATs measure intelligence? It can’t, purely, otherwise people would have no incentive to study and people would not gain higher scores after studying.</p></li>
<li><p>Do we know that wealth is a product of intelligence/jobs that require intelligence? The concept of “old money” refutes this.</p></li>
<li><p>Do we know that intelligence is inheritable? If so, to what degree? How do we even define intelligence, since it is obviously multifaceted?</p></li>
<li><p>No one is saying that wealthy people score better by definition. They are saying that wealthy people CAN score better because they have greater access to test prep. You can’t deny that test prep improves people’s scores, can you? Nor can you deny that wealthy people have greater access, generally, to test prep.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^
- In studies, the SAT has been shown to be as valid a measure of ‘general intelligence’ as the standard battery of psychologists’s IQ tests.</p>
<p>2) Yes, we do. It has been studied. The concept of ‘old money’ applies only to very few trust fund babies who do not play a significant role in the general study of IQ and inheritance.</p>
<p>3) There are psychologists who have spent their entire lives studying ‘intelligence’, and have formulated very good definitions about what intelligence is and is not. They say that intelligence is very heritable, to a large degree. I think they say it’s about ‘80 percent’ heritable, whatever that may mean.</p>
<p>4) Test prep doesn’t always improve peoples’ scores. I know some people who tossed serious $$$ at SAT tutors and scored worse after they took it again under the guiance of the ‘certified’ tutor. So yes, I can say that test prep does not necessarily improve people’s scores. I can.</p>
<p>Of course, SATs are also helpful on showing the other side of the story. How else can a 4.0 student show that their grade is worth as much as a 4.0 at a private school? Without SATs HYP would jsut take kids from known schools (something they do quite a bit of already).</p>
<p>I think what people fail to realize is how much getting rid of the SAT will hurt middle income students, the kind who go to average public schools and don’t have money to hire tutors (like myself). If it comes down to academic record, I have no chance of competing against someone who goes to a prep school with every AP imaginable, honors classes, and highly academic electives. I just don’t have the opportunity to create that kind of course load for myself. It doesn’t matter if I get good grades, I’ll be easily trumped by someone with the same grades but better courses due to wealth-afforded opportunity. That is why I, and others who don’t go to competitive high schools, NEED the SAT to show college readiness. In my personal opinion, the SAT is the area of admissions consideration that would be least effected by wealth. Honestly, a good study program (like say Xiggi’s) will improve a score by as much as any test prep, at a fraction of the cost. </p>
<p>As for the SAT’s validity as a standardized test, I admit the people who learn how to game it have an advantage, but isn’t a large part of college taking exams? Also, I don’t think that interpreting reading, solving tricky math problems, and knowing basic writing are bad indicators of college success. In fact, it seems to me that all of those things are important to college success, especially the oft-maligned reading comprehension. How would a student get through writing papers without being able to understand the meaning of passages of new information? </p>
<p>As a side note, I completely agree that reading is the most important thing in CR “prep”, if you can call it that. The sole reason for my kind CR score is that when I was a child I would read everything I could get my hands on. I would even read books while walking down the street (I still do that sometimes, actually).</p>
<p>Just to add some stuff to GeofrreyChaucer comments: (BTW: Very nice rebuttal.)</p>
<p>1) SAT isn’t entirely based on intelligence. no one is claiming that. From what I’ve seen SAT score has a 0.7 correlaiton with general intelligence exams and other standardized tests. So about 70% of your score is based on your innate intellignece.</p>
<p>2) Yea bringing up “old money” is incredibly short sighted. Anyone who thinks white collar work doesn’t require more intelligence than blue collar is seriously deluded.</p>
<p>3) Read Arthur Jensen or Charles Murray for un-PC musings on intelligence. From what I’ve read, intelligence is about 70% heritable.</p>
<p>4) I willa ctually disagree. I believe test prep almost always increases scores (Kaplan offers a gaurantee). BUT, test prep COURSES are a complete bogus waste of time. Buy the book and study on your own and you’ll do just as well.</p>
<p>I agree with dontno 100%. There is a reason why some people are wealthy and some are not. They are SMART.</p>
<p>Without the SAT, how can someone at a very competitive high school show that his/her “average” or even “low” GPA at his/her high school is easily comparable to a “high” GPA at any other high school?</p>