<p>"Then explain how people get great scores with 0 prep on their first time. The SAT is specifically designed to test reasoning, not preparation or content mastery.</p>
<p>A more likely explanation is that many high-achieving students are grinds: they work hard and don’t question authority, so end up getting grades, but when it comes down to it aren’t actually that smartwhich shows up when their reasoning ability is tested."</p>
<p>you do have a valid point. However, I still don’t think that not doing well on a standardized test means that you aren’t naturally smart. Standardized testing just isn’t for some people. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the content, but other factors come into play in testing too- stress, time restraints, etc. that some people are just not used to or perform well with.</p>
<p>The test scores killed her Ivy chances to tell you the truth.
Add more safeties, or tell her to retake the tests and she should be set to get into at least one of those high reaches</p>
<p>“I still don’t think that not doing well on a standardized test means that you aren’t naturally smart. Standardized testing just isn’t for some people. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the content, but other factors come into play in testing too- stress, time restraints, etc. that some people are just not used to or perform well with”. </p>
<p>How True… BUT… Someone with substandard test scores (for top schools) that will “only consider top schools” and is applying to 20 schools is by definition not as bright as they think they are… </p>
<p>As a boyfriend it would be nice if you recommended that she add a few match / safety / non-test school, but then I would step away from the delusion.</p>
<p>Don’t you guys think it’s IGNORANT to judge someone’s reasoning skills or intelligence based on a single test that an individual can bring up their score miraculously from a few months of studying? Every test can be studied for, it just depend on how much time that person is willing to spend on it. I know kids that doesn’t do well in a classroom setting, but scores high on standardized tests without studying, while it may be the exact opposite for others. Now which is better in the long run? I would say doing well in a classroom setting. Testing well can be done with preparation, but being hardworking is difficult to master and takes a lot of self-discipline.</p>
<p>I really don’t think the OP’s girlfriend is looking at the schools she REALLY wants to attend… she’s only aiming for schools with good academic reputations. And if she herself can’t even come online and ask this question, then it just even more solidify what we’ve all been guessing- she has no real ambition for these schools. </p>
<p>Btw, extracurricular activities definitely help on an application, but it will not make up for a low GPA or test score. It’s just the hard cold truth, whether you people want to believe it or not.</p>
That’s exactly what colleges will do. While there might be slight gains in scores from studying they’re not miraculous: nobody goes from a 600 to an 800, even 700 to 800 is rare.</p>
<p>
Do you truly believe a student who doesn’t put in the time to do well in classes would study a lot for a test? I highly doubt it. A much more likely option is that they’re simply very intelligent, but haven’t worked hard in school. I’d rather take a smart student who doesn’t spend hours on homework than an average student who grinds away for good grades.</p>
<p>With a hook, like important legacy or superstar athlete, she has a good shot, even with lower numbers. Without that typr of hook, it’s seems like a real long shot.
just my opinion.</p>
<p>kameronsmith- You obviously have not interact much with students that spends time to actually study the test. I’ve encountered a student that made a 7 point jump on the ACT from a couple months of studying. Is that not a miraculous gain, but only ‘slight’? There are others that have noted higher score increase on the test. And don’t you think saying ‘nobody goes from a 600 to 800’ is quite a bold statement? Have you asked all test takers or do you have data to back up your opinions? Just spend a little time in the ACT/SAT forum and you will see what I’m saying. </p>
<p>And it seems like you didn’t comprehend much of what I said, instead you’ve misinterpreted it. I never said someone that doesn’t do well in a classroom setting would actually spend time to study- though it could happen. Some people test well, while others don’t- it’s just that simple. Having the knowledge and ability to succeed but not having the motivation is called laziness and stupidity. I don’t think a college would accept a lazy student in contrast to one that is hardworking and knows studying is essential. Even an intelligent student should know that knowledge doesn’t come since the day you were born. It’s the hard work that you’ve put into it plus a little common sense.</p>
<p>So you’re telling me that if you were an adcom you would much rather accept someone with a 2.0 GPA and a 2300 SAT, in contrast to someone with a 4.0 and a 2000 SAT? That’s ridiculous. Why don’t we all just send in our test scores instead of our GPA? And why don’t colleges use standardized tests alone to accept students? Right, because it differentiates the lazy ones from the hardworking ones. That doesn’t even include extracurricular activities. Oh yea, lazy ‘smart’ students probably don’t have time for them either.</p>
<p>Mizzxvii: Given the grammatical acuity evident in your post, I can certainly understand that you would be displeased with the SAT—particularly the writing section. :P</p>
<p>You’re bringing the argument to extremes. The difference between a 4.0 and a 2.0 is much greater than the difference between a 2300 and a 2000. A more logical choice might be between a 3.7/2350 and 4.0/2000. In that case, I would definitely accept the former—while they might have a couple of Bs, they clearly have the intelligence to succeed.</p>
<p>In practicality, there are enough students with stellar grades AND high test scores that top schools don’t even have to make this choice: they can simply reject students who are deficient in either department, such as the OP’s girlfriend.</p>
<p>Haha, it’s rather funny that you have not directly responded to my reply instead chose to attack me personally. I’m pretty sure I’m not writing an essay to turn into a teacher :)</p>
<p>And I’m not bringing it to the extremes, it’s only you that’s thinking inside of the box. Not everyone with a stellar SAT score would have at least a 3.5 GPA and not everyone with a 4.0 would have a 2400 SAT. </p>
<p>Yes, there ARE enough students with great grades and scores, but we’re not talking about that are we? Seems like you’re not mature enough for a debate. Time to attack people personally? Let’s bring that elsewhere.</p>
<p>im srry 4 not usin rite grmmer :)</p>
<p>P.S. What makes you think I’m displeased with the SAT? Because my opinions contradicts yours? I believe I have not said anything negative about the SAT- not once. Please stop being so quick to judge.</p>
<p>Not really trying to add any more dispute to the issue, but you guys have to realize that at the top schools - HYPS etc., it is way more about hooks than anything else. Sure you need some decent grades and scores, but reality is, when dealing with that category of school, an ACT 30 3.5 gpa with a parent who is an “active” alum is way better than a 36 ACT 4.0 kid with no connection or hook whatsoever. That is the reality. It’s more about your “hook” at the very top schools than anything else. Any honest ad com person will openly tell you that. Good luck to all.</p>
<p>My statement wasn’t intended as argument, just to poke fun at your poor grammar. Part of any debate is presenting your arguments in the most appealing way possible—and that means making them free of simple grammatical errors. And no, I don’t think you’re actually displeased with your SAT; that was intended facetiously.</p>
<p>
Likewise, not everyone with a 4.0 will have >2000. The point is that your examples were not comparable.</p>
<p>Let’s look at this mathematically. To use your comparison between 2300 and 2000, this is a 12.5% discrepancy in scores: (2300-2000)/2400=0.125
To apply that same discrepancy to the GPAs, we would be comparing a 4.0 student and a 3.5 student: 4-.125(4)=3.5</p>
<p>In contrast, the example you cited had a 2 difference in GPA. That’s a difference of 50%, a full 4 times greater than the difference in SAT scores that you cited.</p>
<p>Haha oh my, what a typical CCer you are A debate is a debate. If my message is understandable, who cares about the little grammatical mistakes?</p>
<p>My examples were from the argument about lazy students that tests well. I don’t think a student would be considered as lazy if they had a 3.7 GPA. I think I’ve presented some pretty good points that you only chose to ignore. But if you want to be immature about it and choose to personally offend someone, then I’ll let you be :)</p>
<p>Your girlfriend will have a hard time getting the rest of her application looked at for the schools she selected based upon her SAT score. Also, the fact that she is number 4 at her school yet has less than a 4.0 doesn’t look that impressive. While the rest of her resume shines, the SAT scores will only be average for those applying to that set of schools.</p>
<p>Your girlfriend REALLY needs to fill out the Texas Common Application and apply to The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M at College Station. Both are very high quality schools where she is guaranteed to get in due to the stupidity of the Texas House Bill 588 (aka top 10% rule). While she might not be super excited to go to those schools, the application process is relatively painless and she guaranteed to get in as long as she completes her application process correctly.</p>
I should definitely apply that in my next debate. I’ll tell the judges that, despite my terrible stuttering, poor articulation, deadening prose, I have good points and should win. Clearly, style is also important.</p>
<p>
Ok, then let’s take it in the opposite direction: a lazy student who tests well compared to a hard-working student who tests terribly.</p>
<p>Using your GPAs of 4.0 and 2.0 this would mean SAT scores of 1200 and 2400, respectively. I think we can both agree that neither student has much of a chance, but I’d say that of the 2 the one with the better chance of getting in at <em>some</em> top college is the one with the 2400.</p>
<p>
Actually, significantly below average. At all these institutions, the middle 50% of scores on each section is over 700.</p>
<p>I second silverturtle. Not trying to be mean, but frankly, when I saw her SAT scores I laughed. Being one of the best musicians in the state is awesome, but with those scores she would have to be one of the best in world, not even the nation, to get into these schools.</p>
<p>The first two blocks are impossible, dont even waste money applying, the third block is more reasonable but still a very hard reach.</p>
<p>I’m really getting sick of all this standarized test bull****. I’m not denying that it is a factor in admissions, maybe even a very important factor at school some schools, but it’s another thing to undermine one’s accomplishments over FOUR YEARS based on a test that takes a few hours.</p>
<p>^ I completely agree with you. The SAT is completely overrated and is NOT an accurate reflection of a candidate’s actual intellectual ability, imo.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s not going to change the importance that many top-tier colleges place on it.</p>
<p>In response to fuzzyfirebunny’s response, I think we all know that standarized tests are either very important or important in the process of gaining admission into Ivys or tier one schools. In turn, an applicant needs high test scores–2250 or above for HYP–to stand a chance against other well-qualified candidates.</p>
<p>But, it is another thing to say that standarized tests are a judge of one’s intelligence or intellectual ability. Just because I didn’t score very well on the SATs and ACTs, 2000 and 30 respectively, doesn’t mean I am not smart, or in some circumstances it doesn’t mean that I am not able to transcend my scores and gain admission into an Ivy league school.</p>
A debate is a debate. If my message is understandable, who cares about the little grammatical mistakes?</p>