<p>Just an informal poll: there has been some talk lately of eliminating the SAT because of its unfairness to bad test takers and test takers who can't afford tutors and courses. What do you think? Keep it or trash it?</p>
<p>Personally, I prefer the many short sectioins of the SAT to the few, long ACT sections.</p>
<p>I think it should be kept... with modifications. Frist, students should be able to mix and match subsection scores. Second, you should be able to take the sections individually if you want. If you are happy with your M and CR scores, for example, and just really want to focus on the writing section, you should be able to do that without sitting through the whole stupid test. At least once -- say one possible sitting of a single subsection.</p>
<p>I also think it should be a lesser factor in admissions than it is, and not be reported in a way that effects rankings, because that pressures schools to give it more weight than it deserves.</p>
<p>I would keep it. The SAT is a good way to compare the achievement levels of students nationwide. High school rigor can be different, a 4.0 at one place could be a 2.5 at another, teachers in one area may be used to only awful students, and so on. When you look at SAT scores, you know that they will represent the same amount of achievement whether in an elite prep school or an inner city one. They have to be read in context, sure, but are useful.</p>
<p>Trash it for sure. There are so many different types of intelligence. I KNOW I will make a mark on the world, I have the work ethic and skills to succeed, IF given the opportunity.</p>
<p>The SAT has almost singlehandedly crushed all of my self-confidence because of how terribly I did. I've worked VERY hard in high school, kept a near-perfect GPA, tons of ECs, all while dealing with extenuating circumstances at home. </p>
<p>I'm just not a test taker. If UPenn accepted me, I could work my ass off and keep up with all of those kids who scored perfect or near-perfect SAT scores. But I won't get the chance, because one look at my scores and my file would be tossed aside.</p>
<p>Also, I agree with the notion that the SAT caters to rich kids. Obviously colleges know that, and will judge based on the opportunities you've been given. But it's geographical, too. My town is a zillion miles away from civilization, SAT prep courses don't exist here. And I couldn't have afforded the online class anyway.</p>
<p>Down with the SAT!</p>
<p>/vent</p>
<p>I would keep it. I think it's actually helpful in comparing students, if used as only a piece of the puzzle. Sure, it's imperfect and biased, but so is GPA, teacher recs, etc. I don't exactly buy the "I'm not a test taker" thing, either. In college, you'll have to take tons of tests. If you plan on going on to any post-college schools, you'll have to take more standardized tests. Unfortunately, being able to preform in a testing environment is pretty important.</p>
<p>I would make the opposite change to the SAT as 'rentof2. I think colleges shouldn't composite scores, instead only looking at the highest single-sitting. From what I've seen, composite scores really helps students who can pay to take the test a lot of times and be tutored individually in the different sections. Really, taking the test five times, getting a highest one-sitting score of 2000 but managing to get 800s on separate tests because of intensive one-subject tutoring is a lot different than getting a 2400 in one sitting.</p>
<p>Trash it. At this point, it doesn't necessarily test anything -- not even achievement. Anyone with money and average intelligence can get a high score with tutoring.</p>
<p>I believe that most students can obtain a score that reflects their ability with a bit of hard work and practice. If they can afford the "10 REAL SATs" and can set up a study/practice schedule for themselves, tutors and money are not necessary. I'm not even sure they are that helpful. What they do provide is a scheduled time to practice, which is what makes the difference.
Where money comes into the equation is at a much more basic level...did the student have to work during high school to help with expenses? Was the students home life conducive to learning? What kind of role models did he/she have growing up? Money helps, but colleges do take into account what kind of background you are coming from. All students, however, can get test materials and work to improve their scores.</p>
<p>Hey let's just get rid of college since not everyone can afford it. It's completely biased and stratifies our society to no end.</p>
<p>Let's get rid of money because it's not fair for poor people that things cost money.</p>
<p>Hell, let's just get rid of intelligence since it's biased to smart people.</p>
<p>What is "unfairness to bad test-takers," which was mentioned in the original post? </p>
<p>I would like to see someone come forward with evidence that SAT tutors or courses do any good for the people who spend money on them. I think those tutors and courses just take money from people who don't know how to spend their money wisely.</p>
<p>Keep it. It's a legit reason for taking off work on a Saturday.</p>
<p>I am suddenly reminded of "Harrison Bergeron."</p>
<p>stop whining because you can't get a high score. keep it.</p>
<p>instead of using the SAT I, I think students should take SAT II subject tests instead. these actually test knowledge. I would also emphasize AP exams more because like SAT II's, they also test knowledge. scrapping standardized tests would be an awful idea. gpa is an even worse measure of ability than the SAT. at some schools, a 4.0 gpa is a joke while it is nearly impossible at others. same with class rank and course rigor within "context."</p>
<p>I don't really have sympathy for people who are poor test takers, or for people who say that they don't have the luxury of taking prep courses. Studying with prep books is just as good as, and often better than, taking prep courses. All it takes to get a prep book is a trip to your local library. </p>
<p>Sure, the SAT is an imperfect measure of intelligence, but its merit is that it produces a single (or three) standardized scores from which colleges can get a general idea of a student's proficiency in math and reading. </p>
<p>The SAT is biased towards rich kids... well, I can't think of single thing that isn't biased towards the rich or the beautiful.</p>
<p>Some myths and possible myths about the SATI:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It's an intelligence test or a test of aptitude. It's not. Doubtless, those with high IQs on Binet-type intelligence tests tend to do well on the SATI, but the questions themselves measure something besides intelligence.</p></li>
<li><p>The SATI predicts college success. Partially true. The CR section measures reading comprehension and vocabulary, which are closely linked. The math section seems to measure basic math concepts and reasoning skills. The SATI does a better job of predicting initial GPA than it does ongoing GPA, probably because it measures those who have better academic skills going into freshman year. It does not measure hard work, however, which tends to count for a bit more on freshman grades.</p></li>
<li><p>The SATI is culturally biased. True. But so is the material that college students will read.</p></li>
<li><p>One can significantly improve SATI results by studying. Disputed. Clearly, improving one's vocabulary can lead to better SATI results but, then, since that's what the test measures, that seems pretty fair. The same with math concepts. In addition, knowing certain test-taking strategies, such as not answering if you can't eliminate some answers and ensuring that you answer all the questions you are sure to get right, can improve scores. Finally, familiarization with the test improves scores. There was a time when the College Board claimed that SATI scores (CR + M) improved by an average of 60 points from the first to second sitting (with no prep). I have a child who improved 120 points (CR + M) from one month to the next without studying.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So, the degree that studying really helps has not been determined, but is probably overstated by the testing companies and, consequently, on this board.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>All the SATI measures is who the "good test takers" are. False. The items measure very specific things.</p></li>
<li><p>There is such a thing as "good test takers." Slightly true. Many, many studies have demonstrated that anxiety decreases performance on all kinds of tests, not just academic ones. People who are afraid going into the SATI are likely to do poorly. </p></li>
<li><p>GPA is a better predictor of college success than SATI scores. Unclear. The raw data would suggest that this is true (but only by a bit), but that data, to the best of my knowledge, has never been adjusted for quality of competition, degree of grade inflation from school to school, and course of study chosen.</p></li>
<li><p>The SAT is biased towards rich kids. Partly true. Wealthy families tend to be better-educated families, which means that they tend to use richer vocabularies, place a great deal of emphasis on academic success, and the like. This is what it is.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>if standardized testing is mandatory it should be totally free</p>
<p>What practice with a good test book can give students is a familiarity with the types of questions they will see, and a feel for the flow and timing of the test. If a student finds out that he is taking too long to finish one section, he can try to move through the material faster on the next practice test, and continue until he finds the right balance. None of this type of practice requires a tutor.
For the verbal, getting a good book on SAT vocabulary and learning as many new words as you can will help a great deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if standardized testing is mandatory it should be totally free
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, no one is requiring you to go to college...</p>
<p>SAT fee waivers only cover the cost of two tests, unfortunately.</p>
<p>But now in retrospect, I never really improved on anything but the writing section, mainly the essay (I went from an 8 to an 11).</p>