over-rated SAT

<p>how many of you think the SAT is over-rated. I hate how they put a number to our name and thats what defines us.</p>

<p>I'm personally a fan of the SAT b/c our school is very harsh on GPA's. A 2200 (i don't actually know what i got yet) SAT with a 3.5 gpa is one of the only ways colleges will know my 3.5 is a "good" 3.5</p>

<p>I'm in a similar situation to FlyingV... I had an abysmall sophmore year (tough high school), and although I've maintained a 4.0 for my Junior year, my cummulative GPA after my 7th semester is going to be around a 3.6.</p>

<p>The SAT will hopefully be redeeming for me (2200 would be NICE, I'll know in a week)</p>

<p>But I suppose in general, yes -- I see that it might be overrated... I still like it though.</p>

<p>The SAT is highly overrated and people have known to point out the problems with it, but it is one of the only means of viewing applicants because it is taken nation wide (rather than people haveing 4.0 GPAs at their respective schools)</p>

<p>Also, I know many smart and intelligent kids who didn't do well on it, and they were pretty amazing kids</p>

<p>well i guess no standardised tests can really show what we really are worth, but in a lot of cases it does help assess, quasi-subjectively yet widely accepted, our potential and our skills.</p>

<p>The SAT is a test not only for admission process, but for us, it does help us to develop our learning skills, our critical thinking and overall aptitude to cope with challenges and difficulties. It helps us focus to achieve a certain "standard". Koz we should remember that eventually, u'll have to work, be it the private/public sector, be it in any field, you will be excepted to reach certain standards - quality, professionalism, sense of obligation.</p>

<p>I think that the SAT does only help us to get into college but it does help us become someone in life, these skills that they instill in us while we are preparing for the SAT will help us until we die, and maybe after...</p>

<p>WOW Yash07 do you like work for the CollegeBoard or something?
The test can give you certain "skills" if you work for it, but chances are you can get those skills from doing something else</p>

<p>Don't make some college entrance exam seem like a great tool for learning about life....just study for it and take it....</p>

<p>In the end it is a piece of paper with problems on it</p>

<p>I tried to break down the SAT test takers into 3 groups:</p>

<p>1.Naturally Talented-Possess the critical thinking and correctly approach SAT problems without overcomplicating them.</p>

<p>2.Smart People who Don't Understand Approach: A lot of smart people originall don't do well because they complicate the approach and are affected by their creative thinking. While their minds are good for the real world, they cannot focus their responses into choices and often think too deep. Prep classes/books can really help this group of people, who are willing to learn the approach and not just finish the book to finish it. Some learn the approach, others don't. Prepping can really help for this group. People in this group often get frustrated because the numbers don't reflect their potential.</p>

<p>3.Don't Care- Most of America fits into this mold. They range from the 400 to whatever and take it just to take it or believe that signing up for Princeton Review classes will guarantee them a very high score. They are the first to berate the SAT and that "numbers" don't represent one's intellectual ability.</p>

<p>I personally am in favor the SAT. While there are flaws and the SAT doesn't predict one's future success, I believe it is a good standarized test that allows colleges to compare across the board. For group #2, the SAT can be very beneficial for future success, because the ones who learn the approach come to a realization that they were overthinking and that breaking down stuff into simple terms really helps.</p>

<p>Feel free to comment/criticize on my post.</p>

<p>sr6622 - i dont work, or have any affiliation with collegeboard, but i sincerely think that the test have greatly helped a lot of people, including me... ;-)</p>

<p>n i do agree, to some extent, with confidential ...</p>

<p>I like it. It is a great test of your intelligence, in a very science/math oriented sense.</p>

<p>The SAT is nice for getting some extra points in college applications, and it's nice for impressing people, but it doesn't have that much meaning...the skills behind the SAT are much more important...</p>

<p>The SAT tries to measure your reasoning skills, but like all exams, it can't truly measure your potential.</p>

<p>I felt no different after receiving my SAT score (well, I was certainly happy, but I didn't feel any smarter...)</p>

<p>well...how else can colleges effectively measure ppl from all over the country (and world)? I think it is absolutely useless and the college board is full of money hungery little savages, but hey, its a part of life, learn to accept it</p>

<p>"money hungry little savages"?</p>

<p>What happened, did you get some of their evil questions?</p>

<p>Don't fight the system...learn to beat it, instead.</p>

<p>i don't like it. but that's also probably b/c its the weakest part of my app. i guess i'm with the people who overthink the SAT group. </p>

<p>it totally standardizes everything - which doesn't work, because everyone is unique/has own approach/etc. What about the smart people who just can't do well on standardized testing? Does that mean they're 'stupid'? Plus, it doesn't even test intelligence (hence, it doesn't stand for anything anymore) - basically, since there is so much test prep stuff out there, it only tests how well you can take the test. that's just stupid.</p>

<p>life is never like that - testing and MC and FR. </p>

<p>and yes, collegeboard is a monopoly and should be broken up.</p>

<p>"it totally standardizes everything - which doesn't work, because everyone is unique/has own approach/etc. What about the smart people who just can't do well on standardized testing? Does that mean they're 'stupid'?"</p>

<p>No...there are plenty of smart people who don't test well, just like there are not so smart people who test really well.</p>

<p>However, I would imagine that the...er..."smart" smart people should be able to test well even though their approach doesn't match that intended by the test writer because they can ADAPT to it. So, the really smart people still come out on top, followed by the good test-takers and then the smart people who are bad test takers. These groups overlap greatly in scores, however...</p>

<p>adaptation is not necessarily correct. Einstein's teachers thought he was mentally disabled, because the school system is such that you have to be moderately good at everything and its very structured. Einstein, however, was obviously VERY VERY smart - but only in one specific area and very theoretically and not structured. So is he not really smart, because he didn't adapt? </p>

<p>There are different types of intelligence. Adaptive can just be another one. But tests should not be created to punish people without the 'proper' kind of intelligence.</p>

<p>There are EXCEPTIONS to every rule. Einstein is an EXCEPTION. The vast majority of F-students are not F-students because they are revolutionary thinkers. Besides, part of the reason that Einstein got bad grades was because he was UNWILLING to adapt, not because he was UNABLE to adapt.</p>

<p>If you really feel that way, then don't take the SAT. Sell your application instead with revolutionary thinking. If you can pull it off, kudos to you. Otherwise, do what the rest of us do and follow the Romans.</p>

<p>lol. what about if you're unwilling to adapt? does that make you stupid?</p>

<p>LOL. in rome do as the romans do....lol, yeah well it does say something about our system if we allow that to happen. how many exceptions and excuses can you make?</p>

<p>If you're unwilling to adapt, then you've brought more work upon yourself. If you can prove that your way is more effective, then your...er..."smartness" is much more firmly established than ours. If, however, you fail, then it reflects more negatively. In short, you take a big risk by directly opposing the system. I know I'm not strong or smart enough to fight the system...</p>

<p>this is theoretical. i'm not on a rampage b/c im sooo smart and i got bad SAT scores. and what alternative did i suggest? i never had a 'way'. I just pointed out the flaws and the system, something you unfortunately misconstrued. at the point where i have no alternative...you can't really make one for me. What is "my way"? I never say "rebel against the sytem," I say "basically, since there is so much test prep stuff out there, it only tests how well you can take the test. that's just stupid." and "There are different types of intelligence. Adaptive can just be another one. But tests should not be created to punish people without the 'proper' kind of intelligence."</p>

<p>Plus you ignore all my other arguments and instead misconstrue everything I say into 1) either my being arrogant or 2) my opposing the system. Why did you single me out as opposing the system? many other people thought SAT was over-rated, so why are they not "opposing the system in your mind"?</p>

<p>Because I'm bored...</p>

<p>OK...sorry...I unfairly singled you out...</p>

<p>Just to note, though...usually, the easiest way to get an interesting argument out of a person is to poke them a little...</p>

<p>Both of our arguments are actually pretty similar...that the SAT, while useful, is not universal. However, I must point out that the SAT "punishes" no one (except for UCSD applicants, but that's a different story). The SAT is not heavily weighted enough in an application to warrant the focus that some of us place on it, even if it's just for the college app.</p>