Is this SAT combination a negative for ivy league admission?

Test Preparation
81

<p>In light of the fact there is a correlation between income and IQ, shouldnt there be somewhat of a correlation between SAT and income? After all, if you are richer, you are probably getting a better education, and should thus score higher on standardized tests. There is not a 1.0 correlation for either though.</p>

<p>You do not need to be rich to do well on the SATs, only smart and determined. You will find that many on this site, use books instead of getting a tutor or going to a class.</p>

<p>Colleges will not pick one candidate over another for a mere 10 to 20 points. If they had to pick between 2 candidates, they would keep looking through the application to warrant one over the other.</p>

<p>Edit: I said there IS a correlation, and there should be. This correlation does not mean that if you are poor, you are dumb. It just means the richer you are, the more likely you are to have higher SATs. No absolute statements.</p>

82

<p>Yes, i agree. But studies have shown and confirmed that the SAT definitely correlates with income. Im smart, but im poor, lol.</p>

83

<p>I dont think colleges research this information as well as they should but this is what I consider... All things equal, when evaluating students with very similar stats, you take the "poor" one over the "rich" one. Usually the son of a rich parent understands the importance of achieving high in school, and his/her parents push him all the time, hire the best available help for him/her, pay the best prep school education (which is much better than public education, I dont care what anyone says.) On the other hand, an overachieving son of a "poor" parent is usually self-driven, disciplined and determined. Based on this reasoning, you would expect the poor child to perform better in college. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, colleges might -and notice I said MIGHT, i dont really know- not be as concerned with this as they are concerned with how students fare after they leave the school. The "rich" kid will obviously have better connections and chances are he/she will get a better job to start off than the "poor" kid. I dont know if im really trying to say anything meaningful, but truth is, I've been in both worlds and I know how different it is. I attended a preppy school in Colombia (as preppy as it gets, just like here) until 8th grade when I moved to the U.S. It was a big change. When I moved, I liked it at first. There was no pressure on me, nobody pushing me to do anything there was a lot of independence. I liked it, but I wasnt ready for it. In a 4,000 student Public H.S. I found no hand-holding, but as a result of this, I didnt try my best (I will have to pay for my freshman and sophomore years mistakes now, but thats another story) But what I have found is that no matter where you go (including my public school) the top of the class happens to come from wealthy families. Its just a reality, maybe its because of the way parents raise their childrens tht helps them overachieve. </p>

<p>Dont take me wrong. I am not questioning any accomplishments of wealthy "overperforming students", I just believe "poor" students are underrated because their stats might not truly reflect their full un-exploted potential. How does this relate to SATs? In the same way. A rich parent is more likely to care how his/her daughter performs in school, so that kid will be pushed to study for the test, help will be hired, and the kid will have every single available preparation resource at his/her disposition. The poor kid better be self-driven, or the test will be an unpleasant experience. Another disadvantage is that the poor kid might not grow around what I call "an intellectual environment", meaning that their parents do not inspire that intellectual curiosity a rich parent might. Again these are all generalizations, but they are very reasonable and plausible explanations for the existent correlations mentioned.</p>

<p>Standarized tests are all about preparation. More preparation, and more efficient preparation, will yield a better score. a rich kid is usually simply pushed more an achieves a higher score than what i would consider an equally "smart" poor kid who did not prepare as well by his/her own means.</p>

84

<p>I agree with you, however, to edit your generalization, not all poor people dont encourage their kids to succeed. Like my parents....we were rich in Russia, but we're considered poor here, but my parents are very educated and intelligent people who value education highly and they have instilled in me an appreciation, motivation, and drive for learning. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, if you look at demographics, the "poor" segment in American society usually does not value education as much as the affluent segment, therefore, your assessment is correct. I was just pointing at myself as an exception to the rule.</p>

85

<p>ITS NOT LOW---YOU ARE WRONG---DEAL WITH IT! YOU SAYING ITS NOT HIGH ENOUGH WONT HELP HIM. It will only make him more nervous. He needs to focus on a number of things, NOT JUST THE SAT!</p>

86

<p>At Phillips Exeter, there is a minimum (look here minimum) of 100 graduating seniors who are going to ivy league-mit-stanford and top 3 lacs, and believe me not all of them got over a 1400 on their sats. Me personally know at least 10 who got under 1400 and you know what theyre going to the best schools. People on CC really dont get the picture sometimes, schools look at more your standardized test scores in evaluating how youll contribute to their school. Colleges dont like losers who study their arses off for the SAT while having no good EC's or involvement(ashernm) and they get rejected, period. And many of these people are, no offense, asians who think theyll get into top colleges solely on their SAT scores, and then when they dont get in they blame it on the URM's.. OMG OMG "ARE YOU AN ASIAN MALE WITH A 1600 WHO DIDNT GET INTO HARVARD" OMG OMG. </p>

<p>Please, a quarter of the kids at harvard have lower than a 1400, while a quarter at princeton have less than a 1370, so on and so on. IF these colleges wanted to, they could have taken only the top scorers. But you know what, colleges want to form a cohesive class, not a group of high test scorers. My god, think about other aspects of your application other than your SAT scores for once.</p>

87

<p>Bklyn2cornell, sorry for debating with you earlier man; I have to hand it to you, your ideas on the admissions process are great! If you check Princeton review, a lot of the top colleges don't even look at Standardized test scores as their most important criteria. In fact, someone from my school is going to harvard with barely a 1300, but she is a great musician; thus dooit, 1400 is good enough- colleges look for human beings, not some sort of test taking monster. 1400 can beat out a 1500+ anyday with specific EC's and artistic passions surrounding it. Dooit, be logical about this!</p>

88

<p>I am a SUPERHERO and a DEFENDER OF JUSTICE!</p>

<p>STOP IN YOUR TRACKS VILLAINS, NOW!.......WAIT, WAIT I SAID STOP!</p>

<p>*runs after</p>

89

<p>*If SAT scores weight that little, why is there a 5 page discussion built upon 3 sets of scores? Why is the "SAT preparation board" the most popular on CC? Why do Universities still use the Academic Index(yes they are moving away from it, but it is still in use)?And why do SAT scores account for 5 of 6 criterias on the AI? *</p>

90

<p>What are you talking dooit? Everything in college admiisions is relative to something else, if you get a good SAT score but don't get good grades or if you don't have EC's, then you're obviously not going to get into an IVY. The fact is, under this "relative weight" system nearly all of the colleges do not have SAT's listed under their most important criteria. In saying that, a 1400 and strong EC's should be enough. </p>

<p>Your idea about how there is a 5 page discussion built upon the 3 sets of scores: do you realize how much of these 5 pages have been about how a 1400 is good enough? Do you also realize how a large majority of CC'ers are totally different from others who are trying to get into IV's in that they essentially want to perfect their entire resume? Therefore to these CC'ers SAT's are a huge deal. I can almost promise you that if you go poll a regular population of highschool students, the SAT's would not be on their list of most important things to do well on. Seriously, stop it now, you're starting equivocate because you're running out of things to say.</p>

91

<p>Sorry to disappoint you, but the mainstream HS population believes that SAT is the most important factor when it comes to college application. Perfecting the package is not even a guaranteed way to get into a top college. </p>

<p>I have no idea what your standards of "strong ECs" are, but leadership in a few clubs along with below average SATs will not get you into most of the ivies. </p>

<p>One last thing, dont flatter yourself. Read your own posts and you will know that you are the one that is becoming redundant. You essentially repreated what you just wrote in your first post on this page.</p>

92

<p>Tsk tsk tsk....tis a shame that people like dooit are so.....let me be nice......misinformed. Seriously, ok, why is the SAT board most popular? Because College Board and ETS and frankly colleges in GENERAL throughout the years have successfully instilled in the minds of young, naive students like you the intuition that SAT is very important in determining your success and college destination. While I do not say that it doesnt matter at all, I do firmly state that SAT is not the ONE and ONLY factor, nor is it the most important, nor is it the ultimate determinant in a decision, nor DOES IT EFFECTIVELY REFLECT THE KNOWLEDGE, INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITIES, IQ, OR GIVE A 'CONCRETE PICTURE' OF THE APPLICANT TO THE ADCOM, AT ALL WATSOEVER. If you really think that, i feel sorry for you. You need to grow up. What are you 15? 16? 17? Its a shame that you, at this point, still dont have a cognitive understanding of these things, cus frankly, to beat the admissions process, you need to know and fully comprehend it, and frankly, you are stepping into an admissions blunder that 97% of American teens get into. </p>

<p>Also, the Academic Index is just one AID in college admissions, because they need to see some sort of number crunching. KEYWORD: some sort</p>

<p>That is like 1/5 of the application. </p>

<p>For your own sake, you need a big slap in the face. </p>

<p>Also, for everyone, but you especially, CC is a unique community of SAT overachievers with >$100,000 yearly family incomes. People are asking "should i retake with a 760?" or "If I didnt take AP Physics, but i took a gazillion more APs, will that hurt my chances at an Ivy?" COME ON! I laugh at that....but it just shows.....this is quite frankly a community of people that do not reflect one bit of the applicant pool. We have a large bias of SAT scores here, and definitely large bias in terms of socioeconomic status. </p>

<p>"i dont give a ****what you say, because frankly its not going to affect my impression of admissions or you" - dooit</p>

<p>Lets be rational, MATURE and intelligent young men here. Ivy's, as stated by DiamondT, are looking for intelligent, unique, motivated, creative, and innovative students. Thats what the world needs and thats what top tier schools are looking for. Im sorry, but you do need to change that "impression of admissions" of yours. It is totally out of whack. </p>

<p>Zeningchen, thanks a lot, and im totally on your side. :)</p>

93

<p>well said bklyn2cornell</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
nor DOES IT EFFECTIVELY REFLECT THE KNOWLEDGE, INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITIES, IQ

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not necessarily correct. I refer you [url=<a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/psci/2004/00000015/00000006/art00003%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/psci/2004/00000015/00000006/art00003]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;] and [url=<a href="http://www.case.edu/news/2004/3-04/satiq.htm%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.case.edu/news/2004/3-04/satiq.htm]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;], for instance. So while the point is debatable, there is very strong psychological evidence that intelligence and SAT scores are well correlated.</p>

95

<p>Ok...i looked at those research dissertations. First of all, a study conducted by a University such that of Case Western would obviously NOT say anything bad concerning the SAT. It would completely defeat the purpose if they said that the SAT is bull. Why do you think the president of the University of California boycotted the SAT. Oh...and look what happens....the College Board wets their pants out of fright, because they would lose millions of dollars of customers. So what do they do? They CHANGE THE SAT! They change it, to include a writing section, because now they "feel" that it "effectively and accurately shows the potential of college students." Actually sir, studies have shown that SAT does predict some freshman year grades, HOWEVER, more studies have shown that the rest of college has NO CORRELATION at all with SAT, because at 17, the human brain is still in cognitive development, and the timespan from freshman to senior year of college, neurological function greatly goes through a process of plasticity (changes in the brain; i know this cus i work at a neurological lab conducting research.) The brain naturally matures, therefore, accurate intelligence can only be measured after the age of 25. Our brains are still in teen and development mode. They are in no way at full bloom. Thats why SAT scores greatly increase if a person takes in in 8th grade, and then in 11th grade. Thats because the brain matures! </p>

<p>Second, i have human proof that your assessment and that of these publications are completely false. Two of my friends, both of whom are seniors, one of whom had a 96 average, number 30-something out of a class of 800, and my other friend, 98.6 average, number 5 out of 800, in a New York City public high school, both got a 1300 SAT score. Does that mean that they are stupid? The 98.6 avg person did really well in our extremely challenging AP English class but didnt do well on Verbal SAT. She did 750+ on SAT math though. So what does that show? NOTHING. </p>

<p>My AP American History teacher had a discussion about the SAT and he was a graduate and professor at the University of Michigan. He says that the SAT is total bull. He says its completely biased to income. He also says its completely not an indicator of intelligence. A 3-hour test that only tests limited verbal schemed questions that one can memorize the tricks and ways that CB manipulates questions, with a rushed 25 minute essay, reveals your maximum capabilities??? COME ON people!</p>

<p>The Verbal is so.....trainable if you know how to spot answers that are outrageous or dont make sense. All the answers are always in the text! Even inference questions. Its all covered up. How does that measure intelligence? If you are a good schemer, you will ace the SAT, because you wont fall into their deliberate traps. How is that a fair assessment of "scholastic achievement" if people with 85 avgs get high SAT's? HELLO?</p>

96

<p>you could manage cornell with a 2100. the essay must be rapeage though.</p>

97

<p>I know people in my school who got into Cornell with 1300s ok?</p>

98

<p>I think SAT does correlate with intellegence though....</p>

<p>the people smart enough to open the freaking blue book do better thatn the ones who dont. Thats about it.</p>

<p>(Although I would argue that the math section is somewhat rational and emasures your ability to "rationalize", but the verbal and writing sections are ridiculous. Does it really matter in college is "if the white dog was sitting next to the fence" or "next to the fence, the white dog was sitting"?)</p>

99

<p>Bklyn2Cornell: You've made a good anecdotal and logical case that the SAT is not a good test of intelligence. I cited a study making a good statistical case that it does correlate well with intelligence. What does that tell us? It says that there are two compelling sides to the argument, and both are valid positions that one can adopt.</p>

<p>Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Simply because a test is correlated with intelligence does not necessarily mean that it blatantly tests for it.</p>

100

<p>LMAO....yes, i agree to the latter comment, however, the first part just shows its not intelligence wat ur talking about, but STUDYING and TRAINING! You just proved urself wrong. Maybe you mean intelligent enough to open the book! :)</p>