<p>Eliminate the SAT because of bad test takers? Ok.</p>
<p>And while we're at it, let's eliminate GPA because of people for whom it is difficult to work hard.</p>
<p>Let's also eliminate extracurriculars, because they are clearly biased towards people who have cars/rides.</p>
<p>Hmm. I suppose we should also eliminate school, since going to a poor schools gives one a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Hell. Let's eliminate life, because some people suck at it! :P</p>
<p>^ Actually, that's not a bad suggestion. </p>
<p>There is a huge gap in Extracurricular intensity based on parent involvement, and as you say, people who have cars/rides. There is a definite difference between a rich kid that could pay for a month trip to Africa on a "humanitarian" help which probably costs thousands of dollars, and a poor kid with no transportation that is stuck to working at the local library. </p>
<p>We should amend the system but not completely eliminate it... </p>
<p>Well, let's see what I get on the SAT first. My results are out in 3 days.</p>
<p>people need to stop crying about how supposedly unfair the SAT is and how it supposedly caters to the rich
99.99999% of Americans can afford the $20 or $30 SAT prep books (even lower probably if used)</p>
<p>if you have $20 or $30 and are unwilling to sit down and study for the SAT, then you're going to get what you deserve whatever college rejections you get.</p>
<p>of course you keep it. it's the only standardized measurement in students' applications. sure, it's not the most important factor at top schools. but we need becuase (and I know people are going to rant at me for this) it after all is a pretty good indication of intelligence.
Good grades means good work ethic. High scores mean intelligence. EC's show how outgoing you are (leadership)
for instance, I know slackers who do good on tests becuase they are smart. i know top 10 people in my school would completely flunk tests becuase they are just dumb but they try really hard in school. Sure rich people can hire tutors, and it does help. But the test does more good than harm i think</p>
<p>KEEP IT... Needs to be rich to be a good SAT taker? Not really. I worked my a** off when I got my first SAT score. By using Blue Book and some practice tests, I raised up SAT scores to number one in my high school, even though many other kids took prep classes. In my opinion, prep classes are waste of money. Of course, for some kids, it would really helpful. Everyone's different.</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>And this isn't a reason why the SAT should be trashed?</p>
<p>sure... trash the sats. i don't care anymore... 2300+ with no tutor, no classes, heck, i didn't even buy a review book.. just go to a library..</p>
<p>SAT doesn't even prove anything. on my second time of doing the SAT, my score improved 300 points and i didn't even prepare much beforehand.</p>
<p>vanessama:</p>
<p>What that "proves" is that you were probably nervous for the first sitting.</p>
<p>Which is why you take it at least twice, n'est pas?</p>
<p>The SAT measures REASONING SKILLS, notice how its called the SAT Reasoning Test. This is not a test to measure what you have learned, that's what High School's for. The SAT measures your ability to reason in Reading, Writing and Math. If you don't do good on the SAT you either had a bad test day or you just aren't that criticle of a thinker. OH WELL! Colleges want to see the many different aspects of a student. EC's show the ability to manage time wisely and leadership skills (if you are in a leadership position). Teacher Recs give the adcom the chance to see how others view you. GPA measures how hard you work, course load shows the adcom how much you challenge your self, and can give an idea of intelligence. And guess what SAT/ACT scores show...............basically, how SMART (academically) you are. Do you blame educational institutions for wanting students who are going to be able to take advantage of the educational opportunities they have to offer? Wake up people, stop making excuses for yourself.
P.S. Im not saying this because I have a steller SAT score, because I dont. I'm not the smartest person in the world, God forbid.</p>
<p>Keep it! I think it is a good indicator of future performance, though I'm not sure about the tests that have been done on this. The cultural bias argument strikes me as annoying simply because certain minorities have been able to game the test, while others have not (generally). I think it is more a socio-economic / historical repression thing than a direct problem with the test. Though I am ashamed to admit that the origins of the SAT stem from Princeton as a method to keep minorities (specifically Jewish applicants) from getting in. Didn't work too well!</p>
<p>What annoys me are test-prep classes, which seem very unfair to those who can't afford them. I came from a wealthy household, and I didn't take the test-prep classes (I found them ineffective) but rather used a book. But it certainly is unfair that these classes are allowed. Maybe they should subsidize them, or better yet, change the SAT so that it is not similar from year-to-year but has different sections...or if they make it more of an IQ-type test than anything else. In either case, the SAT can't be taken as the sole factor in admissions, though it is still important.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is a good thing. You suck at taking tests? Well how do you think you're going to handle tests you need to pass in college then? The SAT is nothing compared to stuff like the MCAT.</p>
<p>I've had classes where my grade was inflated because of the system my teacher used. I had a Math teacher who would practically tell you what was on the test the day before, meaning give you the exact same questions but with different numbers. If you didn't get an A, you were stupid.</p>
<p>This same class at my old school was way harder. I asked my friend, who was a brilliant math student, and he was struggling to keep a B in the class.</p>
<p>I have A LOT of teachers who don't tell you how the tests are arranged. They don't tell you anything, they give you notes and tell you to read the book. </p>
<p>My AP Econ teacher? She gives us the worst notes in the world and tells us to read the book, and then proceeds to give us questions on the test where about 10% of them were actually from the text. What's even worse? She doesn't curve the tests at all and WHAT'S EVEN WORSE????? When she makes a mistake on the test, meaning she marks a question wrong that was supposed to be right, she'll eliminate it from the test instead of giving you the point you should have gotten. Of course I'm referring to questions in which she made a mistake writing it. There are NO A'S in this class. </p>
<p>Another example. AP Bio last year. My teacher was terrible. No one in the class had higher than a B. The other AP Bio teacher? There were 5-6 A's, a lot of B's, and a bunch of C's. And while 17 kids dropped out of my AP Bio class by the end of 1st semester, only 3-4 had dropped out of the other teachers.</p>
<p>So my point is that GPAs can be deceiving. The SAT however. Everyone is given the same test and you're all given the same amount of time to prepare for it. I'm far from the best SAT taker but I still think it's beneficial.</p>
<p>The SAT is a useless test that only the privileged would want to keep. It creates a standardized measure for something that isn't standardized well -- education. It only serves to keep the working and lower-middle class out of the social and educational elite by creating an unfair playing ground. Not everyone can get SAT tutoring or attend a good high school. Why should people be punished further for that? They shouldn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It only serves to keep the working and lower-middle class out of the social and educational elite by creating an unfair playing ground.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, really? What is the evidence that SAT testing does this more than high schools issuing grades does this?</p>
<p>It takes very little money and special opportunities to do well on standardized tests like the SAT I. The best prep is to read a lot when you are young; include a lot of non-fiction in the reading. Pay attention in early math classes, and do a lot of problems; math reasoning and understanding will follow. Use practice tests, available to all, to prepare for the exams when you get to high school, if you need them.</p>
<p>Libraries are free. The internet can be very useful as a supplement to a lousy high school. </p>
<p>My vote is to keep the SAT I. Certainly I do not think it should be the only factor in college admission decisions, but I see no evidence that the test itself carries an income or class bias.</p>
<p>"but I see no evidence that the test itself carries an income or class bias." </p>
<p>@ midmo Well, you say that the high scores can be acheived by indulging in academic pursuits from a young age and make these pursuits under your volition regardless bad quality high schools. You subsequentially say that because of the aforementioned facts that SAT does not have an income bias. I will agree with the fact that one can do all the things that you stated and consequently attain a high score. But the one thing that is wrong with your logic is that you seem to have neglected why people become prolific readers or math aficionados. Human beings are governed by cultural forces. Children coming from a affluent families tend to have well educated parents. These parents will tend to inculate "SATish" characteristics in their children. After all, in order for these parents to earn a high income they will most likely have to be well educated. They will regard education with great importance and will raise their children with the same values. Therefore, Income is strongly correlated with academic success and test scores.</p>
<p>Ban it. Sue Collegeboard, Sue ETS. We don't need those tests that were made by Carl Bingham (American Eugenics Society)</p>
<p>^ why sue them?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It only serves to keep the working and lower-middle class out of the social and educational elite by creating an unfair playing ground.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A million years ago, I was the kid of blue-collar parents, lower middle class, from an area that sent few to college and where 80% were without a high school diploma. The schools were awful. It was the PSAT and SAT that got me into a most selective school, and got me considered and chosen for scholarships I HAD to have.</p>
<p>Your proposition clearly doesn't hold true in all cases.</p>
<p>Again I ask, are school grades any better than SAT scores with respect to socioeconomic advantages students are born with? Where is the proof that they are?</p>