<p>In my opinion the SAT isn't used to gauge intelligence. Intelligence is subjective and with an exam such as the SAT, which is purely objective, it seems inappropriate to base intelligence off it. The problem with the SAT is that with hours of practice and studying, a student can easily improve their score. These grueling study sessions will not actually raise a students intelligence, just their familiarity with the test. Ideally the SAT would be the most generic way to compare student(A) to student(B) equally without the subjectivity of school grades. Although a higher SAT score does not necessarily equate to a more intelligent individual, it has become common conception to rule the higher score the more superior. In any case, the SAT is used as another facet of your application. Simply basing a students admittance on grades submitted by a teacher with a bias, teacher recommendations, and EC's would make it too easy on students. AP's and SATII do fairly well at measuring what a student has been able to learn, on the other hand does memorization of facts measure intelligence either? To be frank, I have never seen an unintelligent person do well on the SAT. Period. However I have seen plenty of students with superb GPA's do awful on it. Sure, there is the possible reason that a person is "not a good test taker" but half of college is taking tests. A university isn't going to cut any slack if you are a "bad test taker". Tests are essential, otherwise we'd all just hire people to do our homework for us. The SAT has two faces: the one that students see, which we know isn't the absolute gauge of our intelligence, and the one that colleges see: the evil one that tells them if we're worthy. The SAT has good intentions but fails miserably. If a student can get a 1400 on their first try, and five times later get a 2200 (true story, I kid you not!) the only thing it ratifies is the students ability to take the SAT. The sad part is that instead of trying to learn during the latter part of junior year and beginning of senior year, we spend all our time trying to master the SAT. If the SAT proves anything, it's our ability to take the damn test and that with the right kind of pressure, students are willing to push themselves to be great.</p>
<p>What specifically is wrong with the SAT, in your opinion?</p>
<p>Its execution. A test that students can easily study and practice for, resulting in huge score increases, only proves that the student understands the test. In any case, although some of its questions may gauge intelligence, the majority of them don’t. Take the essay for example. When I was writing it, I thought it was the most disgusting piece of garbage I’ve ever written but I ended up getting a 12. There is literally a format a student can memorize that can be applied to every SAT essay. I used the same two examples in all of my SAT essays. A lot of people argue that it is suppose to simulate a college timed essay but I beg to differ. All my SAT essays pale in comparison to my normal essays and I would not be so bold as to say that I am the best essayist.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with you that the essay is not the greatest measure. But what specifically would you change about the SAT?</p>
<p>To be honest, it’s easier to point out its faults than suggest my own solutions. For starters, maybe math could actually represent high school summative math, which includes geometry, algebra I/II, and some trig in a non-cryptic manner. Yes, the math section does have some trigonometric and algebraic factors to it but if you’ve ever read the explanation section to any SAT prep book, there is always a “simple” method to every question that is actually completely cryptic. It’s ironic.</p>
<p>This is pure BS</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying that they should make the questions no longer require reasoning?</p>
<p>I think reasoning is important but the SAT is poorly written in some ways. The math can easily be manipulated with a good tutor. For reading you can just memorize tons of vocab words and take practice tests. Writing is the easiest of them all after you learn the basic grammar and just practice it. When the SAT was originally designed I think that it was a pretty fair assessment. now, there are so many kids who are willing to pay thousands of dollars for a prep class or for tutors. If not, at least every kid in my school has the blue book, which is enough practice that you can dramatically increase your score. Now a days, it just feels like a competition of who can get the best tutor and who has the time to practice the most, at least in my school anyway.</p>
<p>^ Then I ask again, specifically how should the SAT be changed?</p>
<p>Add a science section</p>
<p>Science mostly tests acquired knowledge and education.</p>
<p>Math and critical reading are much better measures of ability. They are the academic foundations. Science is built upon these foundations.</p>
<p>
its called, the ACT lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree.</p>
<p>Funny, because those of us who got like 2400’s will naturally say that the SAT is a great measure of intelligence. It’s human nature.</p>
<p>“^ Then I ask again, specifically how should the SAT be changed?” </p>
<p>Though this would never happen, I think it would be much more effective if collegeboard made the SAT subject tests harder and just got rid of the SAT altogether. Students could then choose to take maybe 4-5 in different subjects. A lot of other countries actually have a system like this. And in my opinion, the SAT doesn’t really measure much. There is a good amount of kids at my school with high SAT scores which they pretty much bought with their pricey tutors. Even I myself fell victim to the pressure and took an SAT prep class. I think it’s a lot harder to cheat the system when it comes to SAT IIs because you have to actually have a lot of knowledge in a specific area</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My position on the SAT’s role as an indicator of intelligence has not changed since I received my most recent SAT score.</p>
<p>sunsetskies,</p>
<p>Your idea would disproportionately disadvantage students from low-quality high schools, thereby giving further advantage to affluent students, relatively few of whom are non-Asian minorities.</p>
<p>My position on the SAT’s role as an indicator of intelligence has not changed since I received my most recent SAT score. </p>
<p>That sounds great when you say it, but that is far from the truth. I have met many people who have great SAT scores, however lack a competitive GPA. So then what exactly does the SAT measure? Not intelligence, of course; if it did, then those students with great SAT scores should also have great GPAs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you accusing me of lying?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you being satirical?</p>
<p>^ No, and no. Are you are diverging from my question? If perhaps your intelligence is inversely proportional to your SAT score, then let me repeat the question: What exactly does the SAT measure if those with high SAT scores do not have high GPAs?</p>