Good SATs - natural talent or hard work?

<p>Math is definitely learnable, and to a lesser extent writing, much more so than CR. You can't really improve more than a little with studying on CR; if you either get it or you don't. I suppose though you could get better at anything with enough practice...</p>

<p>How can I go about learning math? My Cr and writing scores are fine, but my math SAT scores are less than great.</p>

<p>I'd suggest getting the "10 Real SATs" book and just doing the math sections. Don't worry about taking complete practice tests; just keep working on the math sections until you're familiar with the types of problems they're likely to ask. I did a very abridged version of this (literally, the night before) and somehow raised my score from a 650 to a 760. Good luck!</p>

<p>Blue book hands down. Practice practice practice. Use only real college board tests. If you don't know why an answer is what it is, look up an explanation somewhere in the book, or ask a math teacher. The SAT "Question of the Day" that you can get e-mailed to you for free from the CB also comes highly recommended.</p>

<p>^^I was in the same situation, I took the PR review course which helped, but then I bought the McGraw-Hill SAT Math Workbook which helped sooo much. It gives you tons of practice divided into content sections, explanations for each question, and there's practice math sections of the test at the back. Buy it.</p>

<p>I think math is the only one that can be really studied for. CR is definitely mostly natural. I think I'm good at CR mostly from just the amount of reading I've done. It's mostly the same with writing.</p>

<p>^This is off-topic, but it's nice to see another vegan here on CC :)</p>

<p>Edited because my postcount makes me look like the n00b... I had something like 1500 posts on my old account before CC stopped letting me sign in. Y'know, just to clarify.</p>

<p>you're a vegan too? that's great! there aren't nearly enough of us here!</p>

<p>I think the verbal section isn't possible to study for successfully, especially when it comes to grammar--I copy edit my school paper, and people have absolutely terrible grammar. But even if I correct something 40 times, the same person will make the same mistake in his next article. Grammar isn't really something that can be taught, IMO. It's something you either have an affinity for or you don't.</p>

<p>Yeah, there's Ryan (vegangirl), but I don't know of any others. Nice to "meet" you!</p>

<p>lol, nice to meet you too!</p>

<p>People can achieve great scores by either natural talent OR hard work. My best friend scored a 2360 without any prep. My other friend had a 2100-something, got a tutor for $125/hour, and ended up with a 2340.</p>

<p>Most people can do it but it depends on your ability to focus. A lot of intelligent kids just go into the test, calm, with an attitude that the test is redudant and kind of stupid, and isn't really that big of a deal at all to them, and then they proceed to pwn the test. They come out with pretty good scores too. </p>

<p>I think you can prepare with hard work also, however sometimes you just need to be in the correct mindset, the same mindset that people who do well on all tests they attempt have.</p>

<p>I think I could definitely stand to prep better on the math and study the vocab more. Last time, I ran into at least three questions with words I didn't know and I wish had reviewed my vocab list first! My scores are really lopsided (680 CR, 560 M, 800 W) and I REALLY want to improve the math so I'll have a decent M + CR score. I have the collegeboard book; is that the best one for math practice?</p>

<p>Natural talent or prep?</p>

<p>I think the answer is (as usual) "a combination of factors."</p>

<p>Let's face it, some people are naturally much better at taking standardized tests than others. It doesn't correlate all that well with in-classroom achievement (though it does to an extent) but the SAT sure does test for it. Case in point: some people get 2400s without studying for the SAT and some people get 1800s with extensive prep. My personal opinion is that (on average) prep can probably raise a student's score on each section ~100 points above what he or she would get if he or she took the test absolutely cold. There is, however, a law of diminishing returns with higher scores--prep will likely improve a 2100-cold student a lot less than it will a 1700-cold student. Lets say student A walks in and gets three 600s, for an 1800 composite. His/her ceiling is probably around 2100, maybe a little lower (by the law of diminishing returns, since 600 is an above-average score). Lets say student B walks in cold and gets three 770s, for 2310. His/her ceiling is probably a bona-fide 2400 (with some prep and a good testing day).</p>

<p>I Will never do amazing on My sats...i have a LD/ohi that just makes me horrible at standerdized testing...doesnt mean im dumb its the complete opposite i just have trouble reading between the lines. I get good grades. I know of kids who have a lot of the same things as me and they did better on The ACt then on the SAT..so i might do that instead. I mean its mandatory to take the sat 1 time or take all the standardized test(THE RCTs) and pass...but here this the lowest sat grade u can get at my school and graduate is: 350 verbal 310 math..gahh i know i will do better then that!</p>

<p>i had to read that twice to understand that.</p>

<p>Jackson: I'm pretty apathetic about studying vocab words. I never did, mostly because you'd have to study and know way too many words for it to start making a difference on the small abmount of vocab there is. It seems to me the best way to improve CR is to read lots of everything, especially literature, and look up the words you don't know. It's sort of studying for vocab, only it helps with passage reading too, and is way more fun! Also, you could take the ACT, as it has no vocab, and the reading is soooo much easier.</p>

<p>I actually do pretty well on the vocab usually, but I blew it last time - the only words I didn't know were the ones on the test! I'm taking the ACT this Saturday...hope I'll do better than I did on the SAT.</p>

<p>Standardized tests would ideally judge only natural talent. </p>

<p>i find it pretty unfair that people hire costly tutors to help them with the SAT. For people around where I live, this is not an option. Even if people had the money to pay for a special SAT tutor, there are none available. </p>

<p>Standardized tests are supposed to be just that-- Standardized. That's why the scores lose credibility when you hear of people studying endlessly in preparation for them. That preparation is a variable that really should be taken care of, and the test should only measure one's abilities. </p>

<p>I guess this is impossible though.</p>