<p>^^I agree, but when somebody has a high SAT and a low GPA it is worse than a low SAT and high GPA. Because your GPA determines how hard you try, your SAT shows how much you’ve learned. Though, many people do not do well on these tests. I would think it would be better to have a higher GPA because there are many, many intelligent people who do not try or even care.</p>
<p>If a person went from a 1400 to a 2200 after testing five times, that shows dedication and hard work. I think such dedication and hard work will take one much farther than simply just relying on innate intelligence in the real world.</p>
<p>What does the SAT measure, then? If the College Board wants to measure our intelligence, why don’t they just administer an IQ test? Would colleges even find an IQ test helpful to the admissions process?</p>
<p>I think the ACT is much better than the SAT. The ACT determines how much you learned in high school. In my opinion, I think that is better than to see how well you can take a test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such increases are extremely rare (about 1 in 50,000 or so I would speculate). Even students who take preparatory classes improve only about 10-20 points on average per section.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ACT does not require as much reasoning ability as the SAT. When I took the ACT, I felt like I was merely applying everything that I had learned in school; I wasn’t required to truly think.</p>
<p>Do AP exams not measure how much you learn in high school as well? Why not use them instead of the ACT/SAT? I think high AP exam scores are much greater predictors of success in college: They show the fruits of a years’ worth effort and studying. If a kid gets a 5 on a Calc BC exam, he would’ve probably done similarly well in Calc I and Calc II, right?</p>
<p>I don’t think massive increases are that rare. My sophomore year PSAT was a 165. My junior year PSAT was a 185. My Dec 2009 SAT was an 1860. My June 2010 SAT was a 2140. I don’t know, just some anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>^Agreed, but many teachers are really bad at teaching AP in high school. So, if a teacher did not teach the student the right material, then there’s a higher chance that student won’t get a 5. I learned this from my AP Chem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of the data that I have seen suggest the rarity.</p>
<p>Considering only AP tests would give an enormous advantage to students from good high schools.</p>
<p>I agree that AP tests do provide valuable insight to the students ability to succeed in a college class. However, it is kind invalidated by the fact that you can just buy a prep AP book that gives you essentially everything the test will cover. Which is why many schools disregard AP credit. </p>
<p>I also agree that SAT score jumps are not that uncommon. I myself managed to increase almost 500 points over the course of 3 SAT tests. About 150 points per time. Increasing by a large amount in one sitting is unlikely.</p>
<p>The ACT is just a different set of drills, and really doesn’t have demand all that much content knowledge. Even the science section is really on interpretive reading and logic rather than on specific content recall or application. People who do well on the SAT I often do well on the ACT. But fortunately, people who are struggling with either the SAT I or ACT sometimes find the other gives them a better score.</p>
<p>SAT II and AP tests are an entirely different matter re the focus on content knowledge, of course. My simple piano drills analogy does not apply so neatly to them.</p>
<p>I don’t know how to do the box quotes on here so…</p>
<p>“All of the data that I have seen suggest the rarity.” </p>
<p>This may be because most of the data that shows score increases focus on a single sitting and not accumulative score increases.</p>
<p>If your education system sucks, then your SAT/ACT scores would also likely suffer. The SAT and ACT both test skills that are commonly learned in high school, like algebraic concepts and grammar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
insertmessagehere
[/quote.]
</p>
<p>Except drop the period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Superscoring makes a very minor difference for the vast majority of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but not to nearly the same extent as is the case with AP tests, on which specific content is explicitly tested.</p>
<p>How about everyone can only take the test at one given time, one shot only. Like entrance exam in most other counties. That would ruin the whole SAT prep industry, LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t mean superscoring. I mean: if a student takes their first SAT in December and receives a 1500, then takes it again in March and receives a 1750, then again in June and receives a 2000. That’s a difference of 500 points overtime yet smaller increases individually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would also reduce the validity of the test. Students should be given multiple opportunities to demonstrate how well they can do on the test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost as many people do worse on the third time as do better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a 50% chance of improving. I think many would be willing to take the risk.</p>
<p>Students with around 600 or higher on a given section increase on average by about 5 points upon retaking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But even those who improve do so, on average, by a very small amount. See my previous post.</p>