<p>I took the SAT subject tests this morning as probably many of you did. I've completed a year and a half of college at a public university and I'm applying to MIT this winter as a transfer. What I don't understand is that the scores I'll receive on the SAT subject tests won't even closely correlate to the coursework I've already completed. *** mate!?!?! It's not possible for me to score over 630 (only finished 78%) on the physics and 520 (only finished 65%) on the math but I've aced my way through two semesters of calculus based physics and two semester of engineering thermodynamics and as well as calculus though differential equations and linear algebra for math. I thought SAT scores were supposed to predict how well a student would do in those subjects? *** mate!?!?!? Really.... I want to punch who ever invented these test in the face for possibly screwing over my life (hint of sarcasm but mostly truthful). Who else feels the same way about their test?</p>
<p>Hrm... while transfer admissions is extremely competitive (with only 1/50 applicants accepted), you should be aware of the fact that the SATs are in fact "curved." That is to say, you can miss something like 10 questions on the physics and get an 800, and perhaps more than that on the Math subject tests...</p>
<p>That makes no sense whatsoever...did you even take a practice test or look at any practice material beforehand? If you weren't acquainted with how the test worked before the actual one...that's really stupid. </p>
<p>I suggest you cancel as fast as possible. </p>
<p>And those tests...they weren't meant for everyone to get 800's on. 800 is a perfect score, and collegeboard recognizes that not everyone is perfect. This is the reason why they curve so much. </p>
<p>Also, I don't know what kind of material your professors taught, but I thought Math IIC (which I assume you took), covered all of the material learned in Trig and Algebra II. All I did was a review of everything in the practice book (which was only a less-detailed version of my school textbook), and did well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I don't know what kind of material your professors taught, but I thought Math IIC (which I assume you took), covered all of the material learned in Trig and Algebra II. All I did was a review of everything in the practice book (which was only a less-detailed version of my school textbook), and did well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think Brendank's problem was time actually, which is pretty understandable. I definitely knew everything on that test back when I took it but barely finished in time. I doubt that Brendank, with his/her strong math/physics background didn't know the stuff on the test. </p>
<p>Sure, its graded on a curve but I doubt you could miss 10 on the math II and still get a 800. I was actually pretty surprised when I saw my score and realized that an 800 was only the 97 percentile and not 99...</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not possible for me to score over 630 (only finished 78%) on the physics and 520 (only finished 65%) on the math
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While you are far from an 800 on both.. if you get about 90% of the questions you finish correct you should score 650+ on both tests.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
800 was only the 97 percentile
[/Quote]
i believe an 800 on math level 2 is 90th percentile actually so the curve is very generous.</p>
<p>"*** mate!?!?!? Really.... I want to punch who ever invented these test in the face for possibly screwing over my life (hint of sarcasm but mostly truthful)"
Hmm...maybe the test scores actually predict violence/rudeness levels</p>
<p>Why the hell didn't you at least GLANCE at the format of the test?</p>
<p>I mean, I would expect a potential MIT student to actually look into that.</p>
<p>I only ever took a beginning, non calculus, mechanics physics course which only covered 40% of the material. I studied intensely for the AP Physics exam, got a 5, and then scored an 800 on the SAT subject test for physics. That's because I realized that I wouldn't be able to do well on either without studying all of the electricity and magnetism and other stuff like nuclear stuff and pressures/fluid dynamics and everything on my own for the week before the ap test. lol, by the way, here was the percentile for math and physics in June, 2006 test.
Math IIC: 800 = 90 percentile
Physics: 800 = 92 percentile</p>
<p>BTW, the math was really all common sense stuff, you didn't need to memorize anything for it....</p>
<p>640 on SAT II Physics is like 48%. :[</p>
<p>but don't compare percentiles. according to the evil Board:
(<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/understanding/percentiles.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/understanding/percentiles.html</a>)</p>
<p>"SAT Subject Tests—Don't Compare Percentile Ranks</p>
<p>Different groups of students—with varying skills and abilities—take different SAT Subject Tests. For instance, some Subject Tests tend to have many test takers who excel in that subject. That means that a ranking that seems mediocre may in fact be very good. For example, students who take the Math Level 2 Test often have taken several higher-level math courses, such as pre-calculus or calculus, while students who take Math Level 1 have a much more varied math background. A score of, say, 610, will likely result in a higher percentile rank for Math Level 1 than for Math Level 2."</p>
<p>I am just upset that the standard tests are supposed to predict how well you can do in those subject areas whereas in my case and I'm sure in many others, the coursework already completed simply does not correlate with the standardized exam scores, yet the SATs are a substantial factor in admissions processes everywhere. I apologize for my inappropriate outburst.</p>
<p>Time was the critical issue in my case. I just couldn’t read the questions fast enough and still understand what the question was asking. I felt that the SAT subject test material would be really easy after 4 semesters of math, science, and engineering coursework at the university and it was; however, I felt the exams were testing much more on reading speed than understanding and content.</p>
<p>I am just upset that the standard tests are supposed to predict how well you can do in those subject areas whereas in my case and I'm sure in many others, the coursework already completed simply does not correlate with the standardized exam scores, yet the SATs are a substantial factor in admissions processes everywhere. I apologize for my inappropriate outburst.</p>
<p>Time was the critical issue in my case. I just couldn’t read the questions fast enough and still understand what the question was asking. I felt that the SAT subject test material would be really easy after 4 semesters of math, science, and engineering coursework at the university and it was; however, I felt the exams were testing much more on reading speed than understanding and content.</p>
<p>Time is always the separator - if it wasn't, there'd be a whole lot more perfect scores (and there's already a substantial amount).</p>
<p>Hate to sound harsh, but speed really is one of the things that you're being tested on - if these tests were just about mastery of the cotnent, you'd have no time limit, which is obviously stupid.</p>
<p>Sorry that in your case it ended up badly. :(</p>
<p>Always use a calculator on those test = save time! Especially for trig questions, my TI-84 allowed me to finish my SAT Math IC in 50 minutes, then I have another 10 minutes to check my work...I got low 700 on that which is around average for MIT applicants.</p>
<p>Using a well-equipped calculator on the math SATII is definitely a good idea - I wouldn't even have come close to finishing otherwise (730 mathIIc).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, calculators aren't allowed on the science tests. After an honors chemistry and an advanced chemistry class (taken consecutively over the course of a year) and two weeks of intense studying with Barron's guide to the test, i got a 790 with time to spare.</p>
<p>You have to realize on College Board tests that if you're really committed to doing well, you should study to the test at least partially unless you're some kind of savant. The tests do have an unforgiving format, and the curve doesn't necessarily make up for it, but protesting it by not studying to the test doesn't help.</p>
<p>You can always take them again, you know. The tests are very studyable -- my school taught less than a third of what was on the Physics test, but I studied from a prep book for three, four months and got a 730 on my first try. Sparknotes actually has excellent prep stuff for SAT IIs, and it's free!</p>
<p>I know what you mean, it's extremely frustrating.
The SAT isn't a fair judge of intelligence if you ask me, it tests your skill at standardized testing as much as it does your actual knowledge.</p>
<p>Example: My boyfriend is, to be honest, better and faster at math than me, and yet I scored higher on the SAT just because generally I have better test taking skills than him. Our school gives us zero practice for things like this, and he in particular just has no patience for them. It has nothing to do with how good he actually is at math.</p>
<p>I have an A in precalc and calculus and I still won't be getting an 800 on my math SAT II. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.</p>