<p>I like the ACT better because it doesn’t have as many little sections. A part of me <em>knows</em> the ones on the SAT are all shorter, but the test as a whole seems shorter when the subjects are all in single blocks and not spread out. The ACT subjects always go in the same order, but the SAT can start at any section and there’s one they don’t count. It’s sort of confusing.</p>
<p>I’ve never taken the ACT, so I had no idea that it is based on knowledge. In fact, this is the first time that I’m actually hearing this. </p>
<p>I totally understand the need for standardized tests. Not all high schools were created equally, so there needs to be some means of measuring what you know and how you reason. But as one poster said, it does discriminate against socioeconomic class. My family and I are pretty middle-middle class, but we were not always like this. When I was a kid, my family was a lower-middle class. Sure, we had money to pay for necessities and extras, but not enough to get me out of the crappy school district I attended from 1st-8th grade. It also didn’t help that I it was a single mother household (still is). The SAT may hide the fact that I’ve worked very hard throughout high school, as pointed out by my 3.8 GPA. It may actually suggest to an adcom that my grades have been artificially inflated. Hopefully this isn’t the case, but it’s always a possibility, especially at the higher end public colleges that I applied to such as the University of Maryland-College Park. Finally, I am in no way complaining about it. Complaining doesn’t really help you out in life. I am just simply stating my opinion and asking for the opinions of my fellow CC’ers.</p>
<p>How is the SAT <em>not</em> based on knowledge? My SAT score increased rather immensely from freshman year to junior year simply because I had studied more math and English grammar in my classes. Math and writing both involve reasoning, but before you can do math problems or write well you need some knowledge of algebra/geometry/trigonometry and of the grammar/vocabulary of the language you’re writing in (if not fluency).</p>
<p>On another note, does anyone think it’s unfair that the ACT has trigonometry when this is a class many high school students don’t take until senior year (if at all)? My school doesn’t require it, and the trig on the ACT seemed a little more advanced than what most people learn in geometry. (Granted, I got a 33 without knowing a thing about trig as a sophomore, and someone else could probably get a higher score if they did better than me in the other sections. But still.)</p>
<p>I think a lot of people believe these are like IQ tests and you can’t really increase your score if it’s low. That’s not true at all. I’ve taken two ACTs and one of the scores was 11 points higher than the other one.</p>
<p>They are both idiotic and unfair in the way they are used. Scores are more proportionate to income and socioeconomic status than intellect. It is unethical for the companies to sell test prep materials. I find it immoral to study specifically for the tests. And, as with any multiple choice test, they are in no way anything more than useless regurgitation of what one has learned.</p>
<p>joke test </p>
<p>college should be determined by ap/ib schedules and tests</p>
<p>but jk most schools are too poor to have them</p>
<p>Admitting people by AP/IB schedules is almost worse than admitting them by SAT/ACT scores. At least those tests are available to everyone. My school has four AP classes and you’re only allowed to take one of them before senior year.</p>
<p>Response bias, response bias everywhere</p>
<p>I can’t remember when I’ve gotten an A on any test or done well on any test. I always do just average. By taking these test, I’ll always be just average. Maybe I just don’t understand the material, or maybe I’m just not a good test taker. It sucks that SAT/ACT test most likely determine where we go to school. I haven’t taken the SAT/ACT yet, but when I do, I’ll be really disappointed because I know that this test will affect me when college apps start rolling around. My goal for the SAT right now is a 1600 at least, but we’ll see.</p>
<p>I think colleges should look into GPA combine with the courses you are taking more. Think about about it a 4.0 student taking all easy classes is less likely to get in than a 3.2 taking difficult classes. Bringing the focus away from SAT/ACT colleges will look more into class schedule and GPA more not just “Hey this guy got 3.8 GPA and a 1500 SAT. Clearly he taking some easy classes.” In fact one of my top school, Purdue, have course rigor as their highest factors. I don’t think we should have to take the SAT/ACT in the first place. They gobble down money for the sole purpose of trying to get a score just so you can attend basically any colleges.</p>
<p>@Bearlolx I like your idea about about admitting people based on AP/IB and even honors courses taken. But first, it needs to be open to everyone to take. There shouldn’t be any prerequisites for taking adnavced level courses. Also, AP and IB courses should be subsidized by the state to lure more people towards taking those courses. One reason why I didn’t want to fill my roster up with AP courses were the fees to pay for all those tests.</p>
<p>People who score high on the SATs are indeed intelligent.</p>
<p>However, there are different KINDS of intelligence.</p>
<p>Further, when schools declare that applicant A is better than applicant B because applicant A got a 2100, and applicant B got a 2000, that is splitting hairs.</p>
<p>But a kid who gets a 2300 in my opinion is indeed more intelligent than a kid who gets a 1900.</p>
<p>And of course, studying for the SAT helps. And mere famiarity with the exam helps as well. My son raised his score by 110 points the second time he took the exam, with little additional study.</p>
<p>But as a broad measure, I think that the SAT is indeed a pretty good indicator.</p>
<p>Plus, it is necessary.</p>
<p>Otherwise, how does a college compare the grades a 3.8 student at a rural Iowa high school to a 3.8 student at an inner city high school to a 3.8 student at a rich suburban high school to a 3.8 student to a kid at a prestigious private high school.?</p>
<p>For this reason, I think AP tests are important too. It weeds out those high schools that are easy graders.</p>
<p>I hate them. :(</p>
<p>And going by AP scores may not be the best idea. Not everyone can afford the fees of the tests. For example, I took six APs senior year, but not a single test bc expensive. :/</p>
<p>@Alexis That’s why I believe that if this method was implemented, then a state should subsidize the costs of the AP test</p>
<p>The funny thing is that professors will give you a week to write an essay, not half an hour.</p>
<p>And you have at least one full night to take home a practice mathematics worksheet, not 60 minutes to finish the whole thing.</p>
<p>And your professor will give you one experiment/study to perform or review, not ask you to review 5 of them and answer questions pertaining to them, certainly not in 35 minutes.</p>
<p>And I don’t think anybody enjoys getting up at 6:30-7 on a Saturday, stretching themselves thin for weeks prior, and receiving devastation when they find out they didn’t do so well.</p>
<p>Finally, the ACT Reading section puts me at a disadvantage because although my analysis skills are advanced, my reading speed is unusually low (I have tried to change this so much…I will continue to try, but I can’t pinpoint the cause).</p>
<p>They’re just ridiculous. I would feel entirely different if we just had more time or unlimited time, because that’s just slightly more realistic than the impractical time constraints they give you.</p>
<p>However, I feel that I did very well on the ACT this year, but maybe not so much on the SAT Subject Tests. We’ll see.</p>
<p>Like people have said, these things are required, so just get them over with and hope for the best.</p>
<p>
Not on a final exam.
I just took a practical for my organic chemistry lab class where I had to answer questions pertaining to the 8 labs we did this quarter. Search for “lab practical” on google for similar experiences from other college students.
The tests are not supposed to be easy. They’re designed to make most people miss questions, in order to separate people by ability. If everyone got a high score the tests would be useless. Believe it or not, there are people that have “advanced analysis skills” AND can read fast.</p>
<p>“And going by AP scores may not be the best idea. Not everyone can afford the fees of the tests. For example, I took six APs senior year, but not a single test bc expensive.”</p>
<p>It’s $100, maybe a little less, and fee waivers are available. If you go to a college that gives credit for them, you will end up saving money in the long run. It’s probably a better deal than the fees charged for the SAT/ACT.
But I agree that going by AP scores isn’t fair, mostly because of the differences in schools. Not all schools even have a single AP class - you can’t really compare someone from one of those schools with someone from a school that has 15 or 20.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks AP tests would be better judgments is delusional. </p>
<p>Newsflash: The same company that does the SAT makes the AP tests. </p>
<p>The same company is making the money. It’s not going to make it any better. THE COLLEGE BOARD WILL BE MAKING MORE MONEY!!! The company already pays its CEO over twice the US president’s salary. In what world does it make sense for the CEO of a non-profit to pocket nearly a million dollars a year? </p>
<p>Get your heads out of the sand and wake up to the realization that no standardized testing is fair. It will NEVER be fair. It will NEVER be accurate. As long as people are able to study, the tests won’t be what people want to think. As long as test prep exists, the tests will be about money. And this will hinder those who aren’t able to study, who aren’t able to prep, or who don’t believe in it. </p>
<p>Multiple guess tests in general are a joke. They don’t help anybody.</p>
<p>As much as I don’t like standardized tests, I think the federal government needs to make one as a way of standardizing education. The government makes the test as a basis of what every high school senior should have been taught over the course of their education up to 11th grade. Tests would give breakdowns just like you can get with the SAT where it shows that you’re weak in geometry but strong in algebra. This would be much better than the corrupt system we have now. Most of all, the test would be mandatory, untimed, given twice to each student (end of sophomore year, end of junior year), and there would be no fee. There would be no writing section but there could be fill in the blanks (and free answers for math sections). Yes, it’d often be an evaluation of school systems, but it would be better than the idiotically corrupt system we have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You DID those labs, did you not? You were not just reading about how somebody else did them. That’s what purmou was talking about. It’s far different to answer based on what you learned by sight than what you learned by reading in a short amount of time.</p>
<p>If that’s what he meant, then I think understanding the logic behind experimental setups just from reading a description is an even more important skill. It’s what scientists do when they read research articles.</p>
<p>But what if you don’t go to a college that take credit for it or don’t do so well? Then it would be a complete waste of time. </p>
<p>@floridadad55
"People who score high on the SATs are indeed intelligent.</p>
<p>However, there are different KINDS of intelligence.</p>
<p>Further, when schools declare that applicant A is better than applicant B because applicant A got a 2100, and applicant B got a 2000, that is splitting hairs.</p>
<p>But a kid who gets a 2300 in my opinion is indeed more intelligent than a kid who gets a 1900.</p>
<p>And of course, studying for the SAT helps. And mere famiarity with the exam helps as well. My son raised his score by 110 points the second time he took the exam, with little additional study.</p>
<p>But as a broad measure, I think that the SAT is indeed a pretty good indicator.</p>
<p>Plus, it is necessary.</p>
<p>Otherwise, how does a college compare the grades a 3.8 student at a rural Iowa high school to a 3.8 student at an inner city high school to a 3.8 student at a rich suburban high school to a 3.8 student to a kid at a prestigious private high school.?</p>
<p>For this reason, I think AP tests are important too. It weeds out those high schools that are easy graders."</p>
<p>Hmm let me do this by paragraphs:</p>
<p>1.) Ok…
2.) Yes there are different kinds and levels.
3.) Ok…
4.) I disagree with this point. What if the 1900 person was sick or was simply not a good test taker? Wouldn’t he/she have in turn more intelligence because he/she was hindered in some way.
5.) I do believe that it is a good idea to take the test again. I did get better score but not by much.
6-8.) You completely ignore the fact that colleges also look at the applicant’s transcript and they also look into the courses offer at the school.</p>
<p>I do think that GPA isn’t the best way to do things. However I think the SAT/ACT are a bit… absurd. I found this on the college board site via google:
" For the class of 2012, average scores are:</p>
<p>Critical reading:496
Mathematics: 514
Writing: 488"
Those are last year seniors average.</p>
<p>Below is a list of some of the top colleges and their average range: </p>
<p>Harvard University 2070 - 2350
Stanford University 2010 - 2300
Yale University 2100 - 2370
Princeton University 2090 - 2360
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2030 - 2320
Columbia University 2050 - 2320
Brown University 1990 - 2300
California Institute of Technology 2140 - 2340
University of Pennsylvania 2020 - 2290
Georgetown University 1965 - 2235
Cornell University 1935 - 2250
University of California-Berkeley 1800 - 2170
Washington University in St Louis 2085 - 2295
Rice University 1970 - 2270
Duke University 2000 - 2300 </p>
<p>As you can clearly see the national average simply does not fit in with the top colleges range. Now this is the part where people tell me “but these are Ivies, of course they will have smarter people.”
But think about this. Take one smart guy. Put him in a ghetto city. He may as well be the top of his class. But move him to a neighboring city faring much better and he pretty feel like one of the dumb people (sorry if I insult anyone). In the case of SAT/ACT: Assuming he never moved, he will perform better if he lived in the well-faring city than the ghetto. Now take that in put it in college format (no ghettos or cities just universities). Let take MIT, Valpo, and University of Cali- Berekly and he wants to pursue engineering. He get a 1600 SAT score, 27 on the ACT, 3.4 GPA. Chances are he is going to be going to Valpo because he doesn’t have a high enough anything to get into the other two. But let say he does have the potential to learn very well. Even better than the dude with 2400, 3.9 GPA going to MIT. That right there would be a potential, loss. Because he now have to go to a “lower” school where he learn “less” than he would had done at MIT or Berkeley. All because he got a lower score on ONE test.</p>
<p>“If that’s what he meant, then I think understanding the logic behind experimental setups just from reading a description is an even more important skill. It’s what scientists do when they read research articles.”</p>
<p>HOW MANY SCHOOLS TEACH THAT?! I know mine does but it’s a science magnet school. My high school doesn’t do that. The skill of reading research articles has to be taught to most students. I know I still can’t get it.</p>
<p>“But what if you don’t go to a college that take credit for it or don’t do so well? Then it would be a complete waste of time.” </p>
<p>I’m sorry but who are you talking to here?</p>