<p>Not if you look at CC students! lol.</p>
<p>^ CCers employ unusually effective preparation techniques. Clearly, they are not significant enough in number to greatly affect the national averages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually yes, I would agree. It is difficult to increase dramatically once you reach the higher numbers. But say a 10 point improvement in each section, that’s 30 total, which can be a huge difference when looking at a 2070 and a 2100.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not huge at all.</p>
<p>On paper, no. Going from 1600 to 1630 isn’t so spectacular. But I challenge you to find any student who wouldn’t be bouncing off the walls breaking the 2100 barrier.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what your point is.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’ve digressed since my original intentions.</p>
<p>I am really sick of this discussion.</p>
<p>Why can’t people just admit that SAT DOES correlate with intelligence.
to be really really blunt:dumb people usually get lower scores and smart people usually get higher. simple as that. That sounds bad, but true. Why deny that?
Some people are going to deny this obvious trend just for the sake of being controversial. Seriously. Grow up </p>
<p>If you have any alternative methods of measuring intelligence that is more suitable, or any possible changes to the SAT, please mention them. They actually make the test in order to create one that best measures intelligence. They administer the test because it is currently considered the best method of measuring intelligence. If there are other methods available, they would change it. </p>
<p>as studies have shown, SAT scores correlate with IQ. if you are going to question the reliability of these studies, don’t bother. you KNOW it makes sense. And of course, someone is going to whine “IQ/SAT doesnt measure true intelligence” I’m sorry but thats the closest that human beings have gotten to finding out the best way of measuring your aptitude, or whatever you need for college. Collegeboard doesn’t administer these tests just to screw people over. They see it as a valid and reliable indicator, and I agree.</p>
<p>@ornithes your example is purely absurd. Yes, smaller increases individually and bigger difference in total. That’s how it seems when you have a 250 score increase per each sitting, completely ignoring the official released data of collegeboard, which is more like 10~20. The changes are minimal. </p>
<p>and for those who need statistics on score increases, look here: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2009-Percentage-of-Students-with-Senior-Year-Score-Gain-or-Loss.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2009-Percentage-of-Students-with-Senior-Year-Score-Gain-or-Loss.pdf</a></p>
<p>People CAN improve in SAT’s. but the changes are so minimal that they should not be used to denounce the test’s ability to measure intelligence</p>
<p>ya, its not even disputable- the SAT is claerly a better measure of intelligence than a GPA. A GPA is very subjective (by the teachers), and is entirely based on effort. Iv’e seen genuises get horrific GPA’s cause they didnt put in the effort, and then iv’e seen rlly dumb kids study non-stop and do very well. For instance if u have four tests in a semester in a class all it entitles to do well is study. If u spend an entire long night studying and MEMORIZING (thats the key word) the information, u’ll do well. And that goes for almost everysubject. Except many math, in which case even if u dont pay attention in class, or do homework, u can always just get a tutor for an hour or two and ace the test. I think of a GPA as a capitalist-style economy; u get out all based on waht ur willing to put in. And that’s were it leaves dumber (pardon my french) kids at a disadvantage. The SAT on the other hand, requires MUCH MUCH MUCH more studying and practicing to do well on, and is not a matter of paying attention in class, doing homework, and suking up to the teacher. The SAT is defiently not flawless, but it definetly outranks a GPA. And bottom line: open ur eyes ppl-the smartest kids in all the high classes w/ great vocabulary and everything are always the ones doing rlly well, while the stupid kids in the low classes that dont know what “ethical” means (wtvr, that’s just an example), and dont even know who the president is are the ones getting 1300s/2400</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>So, does that mean tests in school are all invalid? And finals? Last time I checked, you can only take chapter tests, semester finals, etc once. Does that mean that those tests are not valid?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. If, for analogy, we are trying to compare the potentials of sprinters, we would be wise to test them a couple times and go off their best time.</p>
<p>I agree. Smarter people usually do well on the SAT. Plain and simple. Basing your intelligence on GPA and the grades you get it slightly misleading because grades are subjective and a lot of students suffer from grade inflation. In my opinion, it’s better to have a high SAT score and low GPA than a low SAT score and high GPA.</p>
<p>
In reality, you are wrong.</p>
<p>The SAT is not a measure of intelligence. It is a measure of college readiness. </p>
<p>No matter what your intelligence, if you are willing to work hard, you can improve your score.</p>
<p>Your score is a reflection of natural intelligence and dedication to studying. Both attributes are highly desirable by colleges.</p>
<p>There is fault in the notion that a high SAT score implies high intelligence. But I don’t think the SAT should be changed to measure “natural intelligence”. Working hard is also a very likable quality.</p>
<p>How exactly does this grade inflation that you guys speak of occur? Is it a result of easier chapter tests, smarter students, or what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AP tests usually serve as a better measure of college readiness.</p>
<p>“No, it doesn’t. If, for analogy, we are trying to compare the potentials of sprinters, we would be wise to test them a couple times and go off their best time.”</p>
<p>That’s great… but, as I said before, you can’t take a school test/final/etc again and again. Why? Because then certain people will focus less on the material they should know going into the test and focus more on getting a good grade. Sound familiar? Yes, that’s how the SAT works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not analogous because the SAT is not designed to test knowledge of content, unlike school tests.</p>
<p>^Then why are there prep classes? To teach you how to identify tricks? Oh wait, but then that means the SAT is not about reasoning. It’s about “cheating” the test. I can see how that has applications in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no way to cheat the test. People simply learn the reasoning skills that make them succeed on the test. They also learn the strategy that works best for them; there is nothing artificial about that.</p>