<p>Hey guys, I was reading a Newsweek article online about the influence of athletics in college admissions... it was awfully written and very biased, but that's beside the point, haha. Someone made this remark in the comments, which I found interesting:</p>
<p>"...I am being recruited to play my sport at these schools. I'm an all-state athlete, with a 4.0 and a 2300 SAT score (1540 on the old scale). But this does not make me a lock - I've been told I should retake the SAT so I can get at least 770 on the reading section, <b>because that is the most important section</b>..."</p>
<p>Has anyone else ever heard that last sentence indicated before? I ask, not because I'm applying to some selective schools and got a 700 (:P haha), but because I never even thought about the possibility of there being a "most" or even "more" important section. </p>
<p>Statistically speaking, we see that the section with the fewest amount of high scorers is writing, because you can usually miss more questions on this and still be in the 99th percentile; nevertheless, some (including myself) would argue that its the least important section because ESL takers are at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>Math is "statistically" the easiest, because it has the highest mean score and the least generous curves (indicative of the higher average performance); but then again, Math is important to a lot of majors, and I (as would college adcoms, I assume) would say that this section is an extremely good measure of your critical thinking abilities- after all, I've seen many people with high grades in math classes do badly because they are deficient in that sort of problem solving ability. On the other hand, I feel that the math section is relatively predictable and more subject to improvement with practice.</p>
<p>Critical Reading though, I personally find to be the hardest. I scored well on it (IMO), but it is always the section I dread. It requires you to work extremely quickly, and analyze large amounts of information, gleaning AND comprehending the most important parts. Furthermore, there is an element of subjectivity in the answers to the questions, i.e. those with the words "most accurately describes" or "best completes the sentence"; this seems to be reflected by the fact that you can just about always miss one on CR and get an 800. Math, on the other hand, requires you to read very little of <i>their</i> information, putting more time-emphasis on how you respond to the problem. Moreover, my experiences sort of support the quote: most of the people that I know who did well on CR were some of the most all-around intelligent people that I know- the inverse holds fairly true for me as well. </p>
<p>Now I should note, I'm an advocator of holistic judgement, particularly the "MIT approach" (700-700-700 is good enough; SAT's aren't everything); yet, this still piqued my interest for the reasons I outlined about. What do you guys think? Is one a more reliable indicator of success in college? </p>
<p>-Michael</p>
<p>(I feel so lame for wasting my breath on SAT talk, but my ADHD meds kicked in while I was writing this, which tends to make me overly verbose and concerned with caca like this :P)</p>