<p>Hm.... I have read many things on this thread. Most are IMHO, semi-true to true. However, a good portion is wrong. The SAT DOES NOT actually reflect intelligence (that is impossible) however it reflects several tenets that are integral to intelligence (critical reasoning and quick thinking). Also, even though some say the test is not fair, which is true to an extent, it is a lesser of two evils. There needs to be a "great equalizer" so to speak to compare the students of America. The test does not measure potential for success, it measures potential in various areas that are required for success. Is the test important in college admissions, yes (Second only to your h.s. transcript). Are ppl who score over 2200 on the SAT usually smart, yes. (Who do you think you're kidding if you say no) Are poor scorers "stupid", not always. The test is not an IQ test, however I think most of us will recognize that even though some can prep to "beat" the SAT, that will only result in a change from 1600-1800 not 2200-2400. Is the test flawed, of course, however that is what the Adcom office is there for, utilizing the score IN CONTEXT.
Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>i've often thought it would be really interesting to do an experiment with the sat. take a group a folks and administer the test (different editions) to them four times, with one week in between each test. on the odd weeks, test at 8am, on the even weeks, test at 8pm. instruct participants to not engage in any additional studying during after the first test until the end of the experiment.</p>
<p>i think the data could answer some interesting questions, for example:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>how much improvement occurs with frequent retesting?</p></li>
<li><p>controlling for improvement over the course of the four tests, do certain groups show marked improvement during the mornings vs during the evenings? how much of an improvement do they show during their preferred vs their anti-preferred time?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In my opinion, the SAT 1 reading and writing ( -> and whose dimwit idea was that?) are an English grammar test and that is all. The math test is good, but in most cases, people geared towards a technical field ususaly do not score well in reading and writing, and NO, in life, it does not matter whether you can write your technical presentations to your company in the most florid language. </p>
<p>In life - people don't care how you explain yourself, as long as you can - it is your knowledge and intelligence which matters, the latter of which is hardly tested by the SATs</p>
<p>I consider myself smarter than some people (like test grades) yet they get higher than me on the SAT? So whose smarter?</p>
<p>My conclusion is that standardized test scores are indicative of a lot in judging the strength of an applicant/student. It is not the whole story and it needs to be considered in context with other parts of the application, but it is an important data point. </p>
<p>I think many people on this board arguing against standardized test scores underrate the ability of adcomms, employers, etc. to put the scores in context. If their admit/hire decisions were based solely on this, then the argument would have far greater merit, but this is just not the case. SAT and standardized tests are a data point and different schools/companies value it differently. For colleges, they will tell in the CDS or public statements how they use the SAT.</p>
<p>I also believe that the use of standardized tests help identify where an individual may have some weakness in an application. The difference between a 600 and an 800 on a Math or Critical Reading (and soon Writing) section is meaningful and suggests that the evaluator look further to understand the connection or lack thereof to other parts of the application (transcript, essays, recommendations). Adcomms and other evaluators understand this and this is what they get paid to consider as part of their complete application analysis. Adcomms understand perhaps better than any of us the limitations of standardized testing and the environments where students come from and how this relates to the scoring. They also understand that, in most cases, there is usually a relationship between student preparedness and aptitude and these scores.</p>
<p>THE SAT DOESNT MEASURE INTELLIGENCE. But generally (most of the time), smart people do well on it. I have a few STUPID friends who got mid 2300's on the test and smart ones who didnt break 2200.
MATH - easy to make stupid mistakes, so people not too smart in math can do better than the very smart. No questions involving creativity.
CRITICAL READING - Mostly a vocab test.
WRITING - All depends on your EAR for writing. Essay section is just horrible.</p>
<p>There will always be an unaccounted for variable. For the SAT, some are better test takers. The GPA doesn't show how many hard classes a person takes and it doesn't distinguish between smart people and motivated people. </p>
<p>I know many people who work their entire HS career with 4.whatevers who can't back up their GPA with the SAT. This is how colleges differentiate between motivated kinda-smart people, and kinda-motivated smart people. I think the fact that all the uber-motivated kids can only do decently on the test is what angers many people. </p>
<p>The SAT does measure the ingredients to intelligence, but doesn't measure learnedness (if thats a word), that would be unfair to poorer schools with fewer AP/accelerated classes. People on these forums are just angry because their plethora (see, I'm smart too) of AP classes don't do crap for their SAT scores. </p>
<p>Also, some say that the writing doesn't measure intelligence. Probably true, but if you know what they want (via a book, class, etc.)and can't put that on paper after 3 years of Honors English. YOU ARE unintelligent.</p>
<p>It would measure intelligence more accurately if people had the integrity not to try and "beat the test". Seriously, prep classes are lame. People should just take one or two practice tests before each SAT (really only the math section so that you can get used to the seemingly easy yet deceptive questions, if you've been taking Calc or something more difficult), take it once or twice, and that's it. Of course, some people don't have enough honor, or even faith in their own intelligence, and that ruins it for everyone. People's motivations for taking these tests shouldn't be to impress colleges, it should be to test your own intelligence and see if you are capable of doing well in a academic setting within college. It does not measure college success in general (I.e: Social success, having a life, while doing well), but then again, neither does high GPA or an excessive amount of EC's or an essay (which some people without integrity get teachers to write nearly half of it). I mean, I got a 2280 on my 2nd and final try (2150 on first try), so I applied to top schools because I felt I could handle it. If I got sub 2000 but above 1800, I'd have applied to second tier schools because that would be what I could handle, sub 1800 and I'd go to Penn State (a great school by the way, no diss mean there).</p>
<p>
[quote]
People's motivations for taking these tests shouldn't be to impress colleges, it should be to test your own intelligence and see if you are capable of doing well in a academic setting within college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pass the pipe bro, cos whatever you're smoking must be good.</p>
<p>1) Timed standardized test != "academic setting within college"</p>
<p>2) Contrary to popular belief, intelligence is not a noun. You cannot "whip it out and measure it." It is an attribute that manifests itself in many different facets of one's personality. You can be "talented at Mathematics as we understand them today" or "talented at manipulating and interpreting a particular language" and yes, the SAT can sortof measure these things. (about as much as it can measure your propensity to slip under time pressure) But these are skills. The SAT can measure mastery of skills (including the skill of taking the SAT) but the SAT cannot measure "intelligence." </p>
<p>3) SAT scores are weakly correlated with college success</p>
<p>4) No-one is going to sit down for three and a half hours early on a Saturday morning so that they may be assigned a numerical ranking (for their own consumption) that is weakly correlated with their ability to succeed.</p>
<p>Sorry if I come off a bit brash, but your suggestion was slightly assinine.</p>
<p>The point about people taking prep classes is is valid but unavoidable, unless you want a new format every year. Then see how much everyone complains. </p>
<p>I don't even think prep classes help except maybe for the essay. Experience, IMO, is the biggest key. First time I got an 1880, second time was a 2140. Btw I was hungover both times, not bragging but I think that actually helped reduce the stress. At least the nightly activities beforehand, lol. Surprise! I'm going to UCSB.</p>
<p>But anyone with intelligence can pick up a book and prepare themselves for the SAT. If you can't do that, you shouldn't say that the SAT inaccurately measures intelligence (unless it overestimated you, lol)</p>
<p>On a side note. For those who say the Writing portion does not reward thoughtful, profound writing: nobody is expected to be able to write well going into college. Apparently, our whole philosophy on writing will go from whatever we have in H.S. to pure analytical writing, according to my English teacher. So the writing portion isn't supposed to reward good H.S. writing, but to test your college writing potential or something.</p>
<p>^^^last paragraph is my opinion based on information from my English teacher.</p>
<p>It's not an exact indicator and ungodly amounts of people will say the SAT is pure bull, and while some not-so-smart kids do well and smart kids do poorly, many people that perform well on the SAT are smart. It's as simple as that.</p>
<p>a-dub: In concurrence with popular belief, intelligence is a noun, and the way you use it in the sentence saying otherwise confirms that. ;) </p>
<p>I understand you're saying that to make a point, but it was such a ridiculous statement I couldn't let it pass.</p>
<p>I'm not going to wade too deeply into this debate, but SAT scores have been shown in numerous studies by numerous research psychologists to have a strongly positive correlation to IQ scores. This of course opens the entirely separate debate of whether IQ accurately represents intelligence, and whether you can actually quantify intelligence at all. But I don't have the time to go over that. :P</p>
<p>What IQ does show has to do with higher order reasoning skills, logic, memory, and so on. So knowing that, you can understand somewhat what the SAT is testing.</p>
<p>As a special note to everyone who says that because memorization (of vocabulary) is such a large part of most people's preparation for the test, it can't measure intelligence: it has been shown that performance on rigorous memory- and language-skills tests is also strongly correlated to IQ. So the argument about memorization invalidating the SATs usefulness as a metric in this case may not be valid.</p>
<p>I think the SATs reflect income and upbringing more so.</p>
<p>An interesting example can be seen in the SAT scores of my friends and I. We're all Asian (Chinese to be exact), all college-bound, taking the same AP & honors courses in the same magnet school, and all driven. The only main difference between us is where we live, family income, and upbringing.</p>
<p>My parents both have high degrees--dad has a Ph.D., mom as an MBA--and I grew up in a predominantly white-yuppie, middle to upper-middle class neighborhood. The neighborhood was a lot older, so most of the families around here were at least 3rd generation Americans. Pre-school through middle school I attended schools in my neighborhood; again, pre-dominantly white. They weren't strong schools, but the people there were fairly wealthy.</p>
<p>My friends however, are from lower income families living in a very Asian-black-immigrant part of the city that was built within the past few decades and almost none of their parents went to college. They attended immigrant-minority dominated elementary & middle school.</p>
<p>To prepare for the SATs (& college admissions in general), my parents hired a college counselor, sent me to whatever SAT prep classes I asked for, and bought me as many SAT prep books as I wanted off Amazon.</p>
<p>My friends, on the other hand, had to borrow SAT prep books from the library, joined free programs that our school offered, etc. </p>
<p>Guess who got the higher SAT score? Me.</p>
<p>I'm definitely not as smart as my friends, nor as hard working. Heck, most of them have got 4.0 GPAs whereas I have a 3.8. I'm the one usually asking them for homework help.</p>
<p>It was, unsurprisingly, their critical reading & writing scores that varied the greatest from mine. The reasons are obvious. </p>
<p>The students (and themselves) at the schools they attended were usually 1st generation Americans; their parents couldn't speak proper English. And thus, they weren't as exposed to it as I was. My parents don't speak proper English either, but the students at my school had parents that did, and so I learned proper English from them.</p>
<p>There are a lot more reasons, but I'll leave that to you. I'm really tired now.</p>
<p>isn't the foundation of this discussion flawed because its so loaded with the person's experience? i would assume most of the ppl here are ppl who have already taken the SAT or will take it, or perhaps in the rare occasion parents of kids who have taken or will take the SAT. </p>
<p>If you say that the SAT does in fact measure intelligence,and your SAT score is in the 2300+ range, aren't you implying that you ar smarter than those who didn't get that score? and if you say the SAT does in fact measure intelligence but you got a "low" score (whatever is low to you) then you're admitting you're not?</p>
<p>its a lose lose situation to argue thatit does measure intelligence. any attempt by someone to say that it measures intelligence will invariably lead to "well what did you get on your SAT" and the discussion will move to become a personal attack. </p>
<p>i don't know. i think the SAT is what everyone on this board is pratcially saying. it is a measure of how best you can perform on a 4 hour test on a Saturday morning consisting of alternating math, writing and reading sections. </p>
<p>and how to make your essay structurally look like an essay so that the examiner is convinced that you have had some sort of basic english teaching. </p>
<p>IMHO the math component of the SAT comes closest to what amounts to an actual intelligence indicator. but its not even that close, seeing as its probably the most coach-able part anyway.</p>
<p>the SAT is designed to test a person's ability to read, understand, reason, and write, but the results are skewed because of the massive amount of preparation that people do. If prep books and courses were not available, the scores would be a much better reflection of people's actual abilities instead of their test-taking strategies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a-dub: In concurrence with popular belief, intelligence is a noun, and the way you use it in the sentence saying otherwise confirms that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I RULE!</p>
<p>Here's an interesting article from a few years ago:</p>
<p>Imagine if your actual intelligence could go up 200 points by taking a simple class.</p>
<p>Among all the answers here what I don't get is the line "Those who score really high are generally smart, but the opposite is not true". Hello? If someone scores really low like 200 in every section, it is TRUE that someone is not smart. Geez......</p>
<p>I don't think that the SAT really determines if you're smart. I got low SAT scores, but I get straight A's in all of my classes, tests, etc. SO SAT scores don't determine our total intelligence.</p>
<p>it could mean that you just try really hard, and that you're not actually that intelligent. Because typically the only reason smart people do poorly is because they are bad test takers, but you just said you test well.</p>