<p>I think this is may be a bit extreme, but say the ETS totally ditched the SAT and devised a new standardized assessment which would be more difficult to prepare for beforehand. I personally feel that the percentile one falls into on the current test means nothing because thousands of students take expensive courses to increase their test-taking ability. Sure there are naturally gifted people who excel on certain tests, but is it ethical for colleges to weigh standardized test scores so heavily? Through personal experience I have discovered most colleges look at a candidate's GPA (which is often subjective due to grade inflation), test scores, and then extracurricular activities. Say a valedictorian at a public high school earns a respectable 2100 without a tutor, while a student at a rich private school scores a 2380 after using a top-of-the-line preparation program for the SATs. Who would be accepted into the better college? Are the people who elect to take courses with Kaplan and other overpriced tutors receiving an unfair advantage in the system or are they simply reaching their full potential? Or is this just another situation delineated by the studies of Charles Darwin (the richest succeed and "survive"). Post all thoughts/ideas/notions, but refrain from verbally abusing me. please...</p>
<p>At the least, view this as an opportunity to take a stance on an issue as you will do while writing your SAT essay.</p>
<p>The system is as fair as it's going to get. The SAT, in my opinion, is fairly objective; all it involves is bubbling in correct answers. There is usually little to no leeway on answers. I completely agree that it's unfair for rich kids to have tutors and prep classes, but if you're reasonably smart, a 1400+ is pretty easy to get.</p>
<p>Not to mention, grade inflation nowadays among most public schools is absurd. For any kid to be getting a 4.0 isnt quite phenomenal at your typical public school.</p>
<p>The whole SAT is bull (I was going to say something stronger...), the SAT tests nothing but ability to take the SAT and is only considered important because someone says it is. A better test would be a standardized test where a real essay, on a random topic, would be required. The essay wouldn't be a 25 minute rush job, but instead would be say a three hour time period for a two hour essay. Thereby the test wouldn't be how much could be written in a short time, but how well devolped the writing was. The question would be something more like an ACT question where it would be a real topic and more like real college writing. The essay would also be given a proper alotment of time, the reader wouldn't spend 30 seconds looking for literary tricks, but would actully read the essay. Perhaps what is the best proof of the stupidity of SAT essay writing is when my PR instructer said a good trick is to, at the end of a paragraph, write a few words and cross them out. These words would then start the next paragraph and would show that the writer knows about paragraph structure. For math instead of multiple choice questions where pluging in the answers is typically the best way to reach the solution, there should be math problems where the work needs to be shown and real math skills need to be used. Sort of like AP free response (I think, haven't taken an AP math yet). That way the test is far more accurate at testing what should be tested. But maybe I'm crazy.</p>
<p>DmctNY8: Only concern I have about AP Math(Calc BC I took) is that they penalize you for using a different approach. For example, in 6th grade I found a decent way to calculate volumes of revolution. They weren't as elegant as the integral formulas you are taught, but it was basically finding the area of a curve, figuring out the radius of a semicircle with the same area, and using volume formula.</p>
<p>The problem is that kids aren't taught proper logic in school. They are more use to plug and chug. I would be more impressed if they asked you to provide a proof for some insane concept because:
A) Nobody would be 100%(maybe 1 or 2 people)
B) It wouldn't be the actualy answer, but the line of thought the kid had.</p>
<p>Standardized testing is a very difficult subject. You are essentially measuring the capacity of someones abilities. If you don't do it correctly, it is very dangerous.</p>
<p>I would be happier if they had it so that everyone took the SAT 3 times, and never recieved a score. That way, you don't worry about what you got.</p>
<p>uR LOGIC is illogical; half the kids on these boards who have a 4.0 gpa can't convert a number out of 100 to a 4.0 gpa scale. That's just scary. We need the SAT to put us all on the same scale, hell I would say it should pass GPA as the main market. I've seen cheating and grade inflation once too many times</p>
<p>I agree that the system isn't completely fair... but here's an interesting viewpoint (which I don't necessarily agree with or disagree with.. it's just a thought I had):</p>
<p>The SAT tests certain skills. For example, being able to use logic to quickly/efficiently/accurately solve a lot of easy/unique math problems, having a good understanding of english grammar, being able to read a random passage and understand stuff about it, etc. </p>
<p>Now -- if it's true that these are skills that are key to succeeding in college, it would therefor be completely fair BECAUSE in preparing for the test and raising their score, they actually improved the things which will help them do better in college. IE, by getting a higher SAT score, they actually improved their potential for doing well in college. </p>
<p>It all comes down to this -- is the SAT a test of one's potential in college?</p>
<p>It's probably a pretty decent indicator... but that's debateable.</p>
<p>The TEST is fair in that everybody has the same opportunities to study and do well. What ISN'T fair is that some kids have rich parents who are willing to pay for loads of prep courses and tutors.</p>
<p>Of all the sections on the SAT, I think the CR is the most effective b/c it tests a students ability to reason and formulate his own ideas. There is no way to study for this, beyond looking over past tests. And I think this is why so many students do so poorly on it.</p>
<p>Math, on the other hand, is all strategy and plug and chug. There is no creativity here whatsoever. A better test would use proofs to determine a student's ability to be creative with mathematical concepts.</p>
<p>in defense for the "rich kids," just because they get put through an expensive test prep course doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get a high score. it depends on the individual student. their parents could do whatever they want with their money.. it's a free country. but if you don't have enough money for an expensive test prep course, just get CB's blue book and study by yourself, get help from friends, etc. it's not like expensive test prep companies have "secrets" to scoring well on the SAT. the test is perfectly fair. one student can get a 2400 without studying, and a second student could get a 2400 after studying like crazy. the first one would think it's unfair that someone "of lower intelligence" could get the same score. but hey, the difference is that the second guy had to actually work for it. he should at least deserve something for all that work right?</p>
<p>There are a lot of poor people who can go to their public library, pick up a book, and get a nice score on the SAT. </p>
<p>If you think about it, rich kids have more pressure to do better since they have more resources. Poor kids are doing it for their personal benefit, because they know life is hard and they feel they need to get somewhere big to survive in a sense. </p>
<p>You have to realize that while colleges will want those kids who can pay full tuition, they also look at that poor kids' resources and see what he was able to accomplish, given his surroundings. </p>
<p>I think the only disadvantage here are those who are naturally better at math. Maybe a small reason they changed the SAT was so females' scores could rise, who knows. I know there are plenty of females who are good at math too..but according to stats, guys are better.</p>
<p>Well, I'm a girl who's horrible at grammar and vocabulary, so the new SAT will be a bit more difficult for me :)</p>
<p>I really do think it's very unfair that wealthier children have often have the advantage for the sole reason that they can PAY for more. Not only SAT prep courses, but also summer college programs/courses. Face it - a person with ample money can do a LOT more (academically) during his free time than a person with no money to spare.</p>
<p>It's true, us poor people can grab a book and study ourselves. However, if I (miraculously) got a 2400 on the SAT with only a few prep books, and person B happens to get a 2400 on the SAT thanks to the weekly expensive prep course he's been forced to take since middle school, will colleges see that one person has worked harder than the other? That one person has more motivation, more of a will to learn?</p>
<p>They will see your poor income status, you can mention the situation in your essay... maybe apply to some free summer programs that pay for you...take free classes in a community college to prove that you are more educationally motivated? I think they will see that a poor person's 2400 is more valuable than a rich person's 2400--just the way they see a Hispanic's guy 2300 more valuable than a white guy's 2400.</p>
<p>And then we cross into the uncharted waters of Affirmative Action. I think we can reach the consensus that it is a moot point. Having money is a natural advantage in most walks of life, including the battle of college admissions.</p>