<p>Best measure of potential on a college application imo</p>
<p>I find GPA and course selection to be a far better indicator of the strengths and weakenesses of a college applicant than any standardized test.</p>
<p>GPA depends on work ethic, SATs depend far more on raw talent. Frankly, I'd rather have a school full of kids with 1500 SATs who slack off a little in school but clearly have a lot of brain power than kids who have 4.0s (probably from rampant grade inflation) because they stay up until 2 in the morning every night doing countless hours of homework. I've heard MIT has a question on their recs that asks whether the grade earned in the teacher's class was the result of hard work or natural talent- I think it's a great question. I'd take natural talent over diligent workers anyday.</p>
<p>The SAT is basically what is your potential, and GPA is how hard you study.</p>
<p>Aright so they are making the test more "coachable" and "studyable", which actually destroys the purpose of the SAT in its entirety. The question is why, and whom does it benefit? And if you want to talk about intelligence: take a random guy with 1560 and a random guy with 1260. a good 95% of the time, one would categorize the 1560 guy "smarter" without even knowing their SAT scores. So yes, there is a strong correlation between innate intelligence and the SAT, and those that tell you otherwise are horrible horible liars. Cheerio =)</p>
<p>Liz, and I would take the diligent worker. It would be fairer, as I would rather have a smart, responsible, and diligent person working for me, than a very smart lazy bum. I am talking an intellect-demanding job like scientist, engineer etc.</p>
<p>diligent worker everytime over the lazy intelligent person</p>
<p>you need the lazy intelligent person sometimes because they think abstractly then the hard worker. A lot of them are the ones making advances in mathematics and sciences. <--- those who think outside of the box.</p>
<p>Go with the high SAT, because the cream always rises to the top.</p>
<p>yeah high sat because no matter what the less intelligent guy did, the more intelligent guy could do it better</p>
<p>I think another question need to be proposed. Would you rather have a football player than never comes to practice but is one of the best players on the team or the "average" football player that gives his all in every game and comes to practice to hone his skills?</p>
<p>I'm not saying that I'd take a smart kid who does no work whatsoever. I'm saying that sometimes smart kid just aren't willing to jump through the hoops of highschool, yet have far more potential than kids who are willing to suck it up and do busy work. Brightest kid I know: Amazing mathlete and debater, with a 1600. His grades aren't all that great (not bad either) because he doesn't care to do 50 problems of math homework when he understands after doing one.</p>
<p>smart lazy kids wont get anywhere. at the top there are hundreds of thousands of smart kids. those that put in the effort and USE their intelligence efficiently will get ahead.</p>
<p>hard work is very important no matter how smart you think you are</p>
<p>the football player that doesnt come to practice but does better, because no matter how hard the other kid tries he's never going to be as good</p>
<p>SATs are a measure of one stupid test. The SAT is a horrible measure of intelligence because so much of it has to do with the environment you were raised in and the culture/social background that you were raised in. Socioeconomic status plays a HUGE role in the scores that a student would get on a SAT test. I would give much more props to an African-American male from Harlem with a 1350 then a white kid from the suburbs with a 1600. I am not lowering the standards, but in context with their surroundings and expectations, that 1350 is far more impressive then the 1600.</p>
<p>SAT is not a measure of intelligence instead how well you could take a test like SAT (not even all tests). SAT is often used by colleges not because they are looking for smart people but because this factor could help them to reduce their preferred list by 50% or more.
I will prefer a student with 4.0 GPA with 1300 SAT rather than a bum with 3.0 GPA and 1500 SAT because the actual difference between a 1300 and 1500 is actually 17-20 questiosn on SAT which considering many factors is not a lot, just reading newspaper or some sci-fi book for fun could give the 1500 scorer a easy lead instead of a 1300 scorer reading his course work to do well in school. GPA atleast serves its purpose that shows that a student is responsible to do his work, but SAT doesnt serve its purpose. If you are lucky, reading a few vocab lists just before the exam doesnt predict a student's college success.</p>