<p>Mollie, to take that analogy into account - I think the GRE subject tests are in some ways similarly considered in many disciplines. If you have strong coursework from a top notch school, they should be much less important as markers of competence. Beyond which, the most important factor, which is your letters of recommendation [and in relevant fields, research experience] is considered.</p>
<p>Indeed, if you come from a lesser name school, the GRE subject test can become very important to show your competence, depending on the field. Whereas if you’re applying with A’s and B’s from MIT, the test becomes almost completely useless. Still, some schools with challenging preliminary exams will use the GRE subject test as a <strong>strong</strong> means of gauging your likelihood of passing it.</p>
<p>And let’s not forget, people coming from high schools and applying to MIT are almost always in this more precarious situation, not the other [for instance such as yourself, Mollie, applying from MIT’s program to Harvard’s program]. You had the word of the best scholars in the world telling people at Harvard that you’re a terrific candidate research-wise. And you had a transcript full of tons of courses from MIT itself.</p>
<p>Of course you know all this, and I clarify for those who may need it.</p>
<p>mathboy98 - I agree, we’re probably mostly in agreement here, with some minor issues or minor miscommunications or the like My main point was that Admissions have not found a huge difference in performance based on SAT scores from 700-800 (or whatever their numbers may be). Thank goodness they look at other things :P</p>
<p>Yeah, for the SAT I, I totally agree - I think I even posted explicitly that I think the difference between a 700 and an 800 there shouldn’t be taken seriously. I was getting worried when this was generalized to other tests with much more reasonable curves…not necessarily by Admissions but perhaps by other posters.</p>
<p>The way I see it, the SAT II Math is a terrible test. But if you’re using it as a check of basic competencies, I think asking for a 700+ is pretty much useless anyway. Either don’t ask for the test at all, and ask for a better test, or at the very least take seriously that someone who has half a shot at success in tough math/science should find that thing easy to ace if they take it seriously. </p>
<p>I have this bothersome feeling at times that when I make a semi-long response to what someone posted, it comes across as disagreeing, attacking, or something of the sort, when I might be in agreement :)</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t know why Admissions asks for it. Unfortunately, good standardized testing is almost oxymoronic right now… but at least they have lots of other things to look at :D</p>
I don’t fully agree with this statement. In a way, all test taking is standardized.
I remember the good old days of grade 6 - when tests weren’t copy/paste questions from things we’ve done in class. Basically, what our math test entails is this: Read the lecture notes. Review the exercises. Memorize how it’s done. Do it on the test, but with different numbers than what you’ve used in class.
It’s just horrible. Math, which was my favorite subject due to its use of logic, has been reduced to memorizing and applying. It would be fine if it were a formula you’d usually use, as long as you need to think about it, but - and I’m TOTALLY serious about this - our math test needs 0% thinking and 100% writing. Read the question, remember how you did it in class, and write it down.
This is actually the main reason I enjoyed the Math section of the SAT I when I did it. I went in there with no preparation, so I didn’t know what the test entails really, and did the test. I was actually reminded of the lower-level math days, in which all I needed to do to get a full grade on the test was to know the formulas and the lecture, and use my logic. Of course, lower-level math was easier, but I wish the same principles apply in my school for these tests.
The SAT may be standardized, but if you go in without studying, it’s a logic test. Sure, if you repeat tests over and over it’s always the same with different numbers, with a few exceptions, but it still needs you to think. In my opinion, it’s a better indicator of logic than your high school GPA, though that may be more important because it needs more work and tests (and I say “tests” without really meaning it) higher level education. </p>
<p>This may be a weird question, but I have to ask - how does MIT compare on this front (the tests)? As in, do tests come with identical questions to what’s been seen before?</p>
<p>Good! I don’t know anything about banjo either. We have a mailing list on campus for things people want to give away or sell for cheap, so I got a decent banjo in beautiful condition for $50. Total impulsive buy I know some chords and rolls and how to do a scale now. I’ve never learned an instrument before, so it’s been an adventure ^.^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite sure what you mean by that. Tests taken in high school may vary widely, as do average grades and GPAs. It’s very difficult to compare a bunch of kids from different scales. The SAT attempts to level that playing field.</p>
<p>Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I was referring to my own school’s test taking being very generic - not sure how it is in others, which is why I’m asking about MIT.</p>
<p>Well that’s certainly good to hear (didn’t expect anything less of MIT). I miss the actual “logic” part in math. Seems lost on my school nowadays. This is one of the primary reasons I’m applying to colleges in the States rather than just get into the top college here - where I can get in with a scholarship through early admissions easily.</p>
<p>To what extent and how one can distinguish “logic/intelligence” and “knowledge” is a hugely loaded question.</p>
<p>The SAT is good with checking pattern-matching and basic juggling of possibilities. These are very basic reasoning. Hard stuff usually involves turning something scary into something intuitive, and unfortunately there’s no getting around doing some work to do this. I’d say a good high school calculus or physics class does everything better. The problem is there are probably not too many good ones out there. </p>
<p>You should rest assured no halfway decent [really by definition] school is going to be about regurgitating. You don’t use half of what you learn in exact form in work after college, generally, but the process of being comfortable thinking in the way it gets you to think is really useful, I think. This should influence the style of good programs. Such are the fairy tales they feed us, at any rate … </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always wonder, isn’t practically any subject supposed to use logic? If done right, that is …</p>
<p>Sure, “natural” idealizations of physical and other phenomena form especially intricate and attractive logical systems to manipulate [perhaps closer to your meaning].</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the most I tried to learn an instrument is some screeches on a violin that we had lying around, and that went out the window fast [not the actual violin :D].</p>
<p>Sounds like you’re doing it though! The actual banjo sounds a good deal. Impulsive buys can keep one quite happy … I’ll try to ask you about it as time goes on …</p>
<p>^^ Couple this with a nice universal truth - that screeching on a violin incessantly is the perfect way to ensure no person, dog, cat, or skunk would enjoy one’s company … </p>
<p>[All of this does relate to SAT score comparisons somehow]</p>
<p>That’s true, but take this example. I’m currently a junior, and I have around 16 subjects/week. Math is my most frequent, at around 6-7 hours. Arabic is my least frequent, at 2. Now, my arabic tests require more thinking and critical reading than my math test does, because it’s been reduced to nothing more than memorization. Math shouldn’t be like this. It’s true that any subject should require you to think (aside from, possibly, history) and they all do, but physics and math and chemistry (and advanced biology, I’d assume, but I wouldn’t know) are just way up there on the thinking scale. You need to have a knack for noticing things, reading between the lines, knowing how to apply learned knowledge and formulas, etc. In short, there’s a lot of complexities in math/physics and the like, which is why I like them, and why I hate the generic testing we’re going through for them in school.</p>
<p>True, the SAT isn’t a logic test, and it’s definitely extremely simple (even our generic tests are more difficult than the SAT) - however, it requires you to think, which. in my book, puts it above the school tests we have. Intelligence is not easily compared. I don’t really believe in IQ tests either. I’ve yet to take one that sounds legit.</p>
<p>The odd thing is, though, that I’m in what’s probably the best school in the country. Especially in the sciences. I’d hate to see what others school are doing.
Yet, we have no 2400ers in the history of our school. We have several 800’s on Math per year, but never an 800 on CR. I was hoping to be the first in my school, but a lack of preparation cut me short. I might try it again in November and go for that title.
Just goes to show though, the school, even with its generic tests, is still strong at the sciences. We do have a severe lack of proficiency in English though. I know of only 2 students in the whole of our high school, aside from myself, who can speak fluent English and understand well and have actual comparable CR scores (above 700). No idea on the writing front - multiple 700’s - so I’m hoping to be the first 800. And one of the 2 students graduates in July. So, yeah. </p>
<p>At any rate, I’m not even sure what this has got to do with the subject anymore So, back to it I guess.</p>
My main point was that Admissions have not found a huge difference in performance based on SAT scores from 700-800 (or whatever their numbers may be). Thank goodness they look at other things :P</p>
I know some chords and rolls and how to do a scale now. I’ve never learned an instrument before, so it’s been an adventure ^.^</p>