<p>Also, I think Albert Einstein said, "Genius is 99 percent perspiration
and 1 percent inspiration." </p>
<p>Einstein was a genius before he created all of his theories and whatnot. For Godsake he had a bigger brain than everyone else. It was Edison who said that anyway. The point of the saying in context to geniuses is that even if youre smart and creative you still gotta work to produce something good. </p>
<p>BTW Edison's lab invented more stuff than he did, so chances are when you credit him with an invention he didnt make it.</p>
<p>I know this thread is old but it came up when I was googling whether a good standard test taker gets good grades too because I’ve seen always seen this. </p>
<p>All, I know is the reason the SAT Board claims they have the test is due to the varying ranges of quality of schools under federalism which is under each state and locality. So the grades don’t say enough for them. They also claim that if you have taken rigorous courses in HS you will do well. It is not an IQ or even an achievement test. It is a test on critical thinking and reasoning. </p>
<p>BTW it originally developed out of a test developed by a psychologist for the military during WWI ( I believe it was this war) to determine where men should be posted for jobs in the military. From there it evolved. It wasn’t even widely used until after 1947 by colleges or thereabouts. They wouldn’t use it at first.</p>
<p>The way to do well on the SAT’s is to practice how to take the test. There are students who vigorously study for the SAT, take classes, etc. just to “improve” their score. Keyword is improve: How you IMPROVE intelligence? You can gain knowledge but you can’t all of a sudden become really smart or…not smart. If you have to practice and study for the test and learn HOW to answer certain questions in a certain amount of time, then I don’t think that’s a very accurate depiction of one’s knowledge or intelligence at all.
</p>
<p>For some this may be true but not all. I have good grades. I have 3.9 GPA and I have worked incredibly hard for it and I know the material I have learned and I retained it. HOWEVER, “I’m a bad standardized test taker.” I really am and here’s why: I’ve taken the SAT twice and both times I was shaken from being so nervous. I studied, did practice questions/tests and I took two SAT prep courses. But once the real test time came, I got so nervous, I blanked, and I felt so rushed because I was in a race for time. Time is also a big factor that screwed me up. I feel too much pressure with being timed and I feel rushed. I didn’t do well the first time so I studied for the second time, took another class and actually did WORSE. If the SAT’s are an accurate measure of my intelligence, then did my intelligence lower by the second time I took the test? Does this mean that I’m not as intellgent as the student who scored high on the test but who also didn’t study for the SATs, took no classes, and has a 2.5 GPA? (But just because my gpa is higher doesn’t make me more intelligent than the student with the 2.5). I know people who are lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. who did poorly on the SAT’s. So their intelligence level must be low?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That person with the 2.5 gpa who did excellent on the SAT’s doesn’t obviously apply themself or work hard in school, so that wouldn’t add much to a higher-level institution either if they aren’t even going to apply themself. I pull A’s but I don’t “slug” along. I work extremely hard and I believe hard work pays off in the end before any once-in-a-life time standardized test that no one will care about within the next year.</p>
<p>The SAT’s are just another test to study for. I don’t think there is truly any system that can accurately measure a person’s intelligence. Intelligence is not limited to a test score number. It goes far beyond some stupid test that won’t mean jack after getting accepted into college and it goes far beyond any NUMBER. I honestly think the SAT’s are a huge waste of money. They are a money scam that proves nothing except that a person knows how to study and take a standardized test. My opinion. :)</p>
<p>I’d say the “I’m a bad test taker” excuse is analogous to the “I’m a bad question answerer” excuse.
When the teacher asks me a question, I somehow supply the wrong answer. It’s not my fault though; I just suck at answering questions. </p>
<p>I also love how people say the SAT is a poor indicator of how well they will perform in college, because they “know all the material, but can’t perform well under pressure.”
I hate to break the news to everyone, but in college and, for that matter, in life, one needs to be able to perform well under pressure. Deadlines, presentations, and all those other things that make people nervous are facts of life. </p>
<p>Studying actually helps. In my opinion, the “bad test takers” are really just the ones who took no time to prepare themselves and familiarize themselves with the exam.
In my experience, just knowing the format and structure of the exam was incredibly helpful, as I knew exactly what to expect and how to deal with it.</p>
<p>I agree. However, recently (by which I mean in the last 10 years) it has been becoming easier to “study” for the SAT with the proliferation of prep books & courses. Thus, while there are still students that get very high scores without any preparation, there are others, in the “hard workers” category but that may not be as naturally intelligent, that study for the SAT just like any other test and also pull off high scores. Then there are those who study and don’t get good scores. But really, what is the difference between those who study and get good scores, and those who don’t study and get good scores? If a student does not possess as much raw intelligence but is willing to put the work in so that he/she can do as well as someone more “intelligent,” then does it matter? Even though I disagree with you on this point, this is why <em>I</em> think more emphasis should be placed on SAT, because high scorers: Exhibit proof of intelligence and/or hard work. Whereas low scorers in general exhibit lower intelligence and/or effort. However, I do know some people who I consider very smart and still don’t do well on the SAT, even after preparation. For these cases, I think other test scores (AP, SAT2, or of course ACT instead) should be considered. Grades, on the other hand, vary from school to school; at some schools, unintelligent people can put in no effort and easily pull off an A+, whereas at others, highly intelligent and hard working people can still get saddled with a B. This is why I think grades should be de-emphasized, or at least, taken only within the context of the whole school - but then, if the school does rank, you must find out how intelligent the average student is, because being at the top of a school full of lazy/unintelligent students shouldn’t count for as much as being in the middle of a school full of bright and diligent students unless both students have the scores to back it up.</p>
<p>So in conclusion… I came to no real conclusions. Sorry to ramble.</p>
<p>You guys make it seem as if studying enough will guarantee you a good SAT score. Totally not true. I have friends who have sat through SAT class for two years now, and are still at it into senior year. They just can’t break 2000.</p>
<p>If you guys have trouble with test-taking due to anxiety or some other reason, perhaps seek a psychologist to find the reason why. But in general, anxiety is no excuse for justifying a low score.</p>
<p>“That person with the 2.5 gpa who did excellent on the SAT’s doesn’t obviously apply themself or work hard in school, so that wouldn’t add much to a higher-level institution either if they aren’t even going to apply themself. I pull A’s but I don’t “slug” along. I work extremely hard and I believe hard work pays off in the end before any once-in-a-life time standardized test that no one will care about within the next year.”</p>
<p>Hence why colleges don’t base admissions solely on SAT or GPA alone.</p>
<p>A lot of people like to bash the SAT/ACT, but I’m thankful for their existence, since it’s basically the only reason I’m not attending community college. GPA is problematic because of grade inflation and differing standards. Standardized tests are problematic because they can be studied for and often favor students with the resources to do it. There’s no perfect way of testing a student’s academic ability, but combining the two flawed methods is IMO a much better way of approaching the issue than trying to eliminate one for its flaws and leaving the other rotten leg to stand on its own.</p>
<p>To an extent, the SAT does measure intelligence. I know people at my school that prepared for the SAT and studied a lot. These people also get straight A’s and work really hard. They ended up with 1800s on the test. At my school, a lot of the classes are just about rote memorization, so as long as you study a lot and put in the work, you will get an A. The SAT measures how smart you actually are, especially with critical thinking skills. Think about it: in a job, does your boss just hand you a bunch of information to memorize, or do you have to critically think to get a job done well?</p>
<p>"those who do well and use the “bad test taker excuse” must go to some school with the greatest grade inflations!!!
if you do well in school, how can you flunk on tests? it doesn’t make sense. how can someone with 4.0 get less than 1300??? if you get 4.0. you would have to be the top 5% in your school, and a 1300 isn’t even the 95th percentile, so a 4.0 should easily exceed 1300. In canada, people who score over 80% average can normally score over 1300 on the SATs with little preparation and people with 90% average can easily score over 1460.
so, if you have 4.0 and has 1300-, then your grades are inflated. obviously, duhhhhh! "</p>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p>I’m a sophomore and I have a 3.8 GPA UNWEIGHTED and a 4.2 WEIGHTED. I just took a diagnostic SAT and scored a 1350 :[. I do good on regular tests at my school but bad on the SAT.</p>