<p>I'm wondering, do people study for them, even though they're aptitude tests?</p>
<p>People do. There's one girl on here who got her 2100 up to a 2400 by taking SIXTY practice tests, TWO TO THREE TIMES EACH. O__O That adds up to sooo many hours of her life that could have been spent doing other things... lol, but the end result was good! :]</p>
<p>I, personally, didn't. However, I guess it wasn't really out of principle: I took it in the beginning of my junior year, planning to practice whatever was necessary and retake it later in the year, but was satisfied with how I did. Only later did I begin to think about "learning the test" and whether or not it defeats the purpose and tarnishes the intended value of the test.</p>
<p>I'm pretty conflicted about it, really. I suppose that "scholastic aptitude," which is what the SAT originally stood for, includes work ethic, so studying is a valid strategy and therefore scores of those who study ARE representative of their, erm, "aptitude." On the other hand, it seems kind of unfair that the test is so "learnable" and that colleges have no way of knowing whether a high score were achieved through natural ability or through memorization of techniques for "problem type x" or "problem type y." The girl I described above once posted that after doing so many tests so many times through, she was familiar with every type of problem CollegeBoard could possibly throw at her and knew how to approach each one. Is that really what the test is supposed to measure? Ability to... memorize strategies for taking the SAT?</p>
<p>Some people study for them, especially on these forums.</p>
<p>I took a few classes (free ones to boot) of a PSAT prep class, and while I didn't actually learn anything new in taking them I suppose that in carrying over they might count as "studying" for the SAT, although by extension one could say that my whole life has been dedicated to SAT studying. =O ;D</p>
<p>A few loony people here will vehemently oppose anyone who dares study for these supposed "aptitude" (at what? SAT test taking?) tests, so I'll take this space to say inb4bitterlydenunciativereplies;p.</p>
<p>Lul. IV and I dominate these threads with our cynicism. >:]</p>
<p>
[quote]
A few loony people here will vehemently oppose anyone who dares study for these supposed "aptitude" (at what? SAT test taking?) tests, so I'll take this space to say inb4bitterlydenunciativereplies;p.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOL @ you, doomster.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with poseur [as always? :D], although I'm not conflicted. I didn't study and even if I'd scored lower than I did, I don't think I would have retaken it. A score with no preparation shows what you deserve to get on the test. If [oh how I wish this were possible, and able to regulated] everyone would just NOT study for this damn thing, the scores would actually mean something!
!!!!!!
lol. Excuse my cynicism and great annoyance.</p>
<p>I didn't study a single bit! In fact, I had been sitting out of school for a year and hadn't even looked at a math problem in 3 months. I still scored 3 points higher than I would have in by highest dreams--28.</p>
<p>Let's not start with what constitutes "studying" for the SAT and all this bs again. my god, poseur and I'mviagra...every thread.</p>
<p>I'm nowhere close to worrying about tests, really. Considering my usual personality I probably won't study them regardless of my score whether it's really low or high, because I'd just think that would be wasting my time when I could be playing games or sleeping.</p>
<p>I wish I had studied during my sophmore year going into junior year. I didn't really care about school, and just took the tests. I'd study, if not, you may regret it. It's just that "potential" that you could do better if you studied that makes me angry in hindsight.</p>