over-rated SAT

<p>it seems completely stupid (and might be), but for some reason, high scores have a .6 correlation to achievers.. and to grades /etc..
maybe its a time-commitment issue, who knows. but i know that SAT is UNFAIR.</p>

<p>We had our awards night last night, and we have an award for highest SAT. Am I the only one who thinks that is gay? (and I won the award too)</p>

<p>I think that SATs have an obvious reason, but they are far from perfect. The point is to make everything "standardized" so that they can truely concretely compare applicants from all over the country. I like the SAT because the person who goes home and memorizes every word the teacher says and then gets a 100 on the test, but can't use enough common sense to turn on a computer is shown to lack "real intelligence." But at the same time, the lazy student who doesn't do anything in school, but has great reasoning ability shows that they have a lot of potential. The SAT tests a certain kind of thinking that is not really learned in school. For that reason, it is merely testing your "SAT thinking." The problem then lies in the fact that by learning all different techniques, it isn't extremely hard to learn to adapt to the SAT. I believe that if everyone were to spend 5 hours a week studying for the SATs from about 8th grade, if they were even just an average student, they should be able to get over a 1400. Unfortunately I started too late, and wish I could go back and have learned earlier. Once you become very familiar with the test, it becomes so mechanical, you don't even need to look at all the answer choices. So because there is so much test prep, and you really can "study" for it, it kind of defeats the point of the test. Those that have access to lots of test prep material have an unfair advantage over those who don't, and only take the test once.</p>

<p>"What about the smart people who just can't do well on standardized testing? "</p>

<p>No such thing. If you're good at the topic being tested, you will get the questions correct. I don't care if your approahc is different - smart people have the most radical approaches of all. </p>

<p>I do things totally differently from like...how my chem teacher explains it. Her way might be simpler, faster - but I understand my method. I can reason through most Chem/Physics math problems without learning the "teacher's" or the "princeton review's" method. I don't do the problems on the Math IIc the easiest way or even the best way - I just do em...and it usually works out. </p>

<p>How can you "not be good at testing." What does that even MEAN, other than "I can't do this"?</p>

<hr>

<p>And, clearly, there are two groups of people. People who test prep and people who don't. Most of the "Smart" kids fall into the people who don't category (Along with the kids that don't give a flying f***). The test prep kids tend to be the ones who score from 900-1400 and want to improve by "Learning the SAT." True smart kids don't "Learn the SAT" - they just do it.</p>

<p>Sure people can "study" up for the SATs and learn the approach. But I admire the people who figured out the approach from the very beginning without use of prep books. Once you start talking 1500+(old SAT) you see more and more of these people. The people who can break down SAT problems into the simple mechanics that they are without the use of prep books are the ones who have real potential for great success. That kind of skill can be taught, but finding it for yourself is the right way to approach it.</p>

<p>I think of prep books as the same as teachers think of sparknotes. Sure you can learn the themes and insights of the book, but not identifying them by yourself makes you lack the skill that was sought for in the first place and will be helpful to you in the real world. The ability to recognize, simplify, and analyze what was given to you.</p>

<p>Analyzing is a skill that does not receive as much attention as it should. The people who don't have it are the first to complain about the SAT.</p>

<p>The SAT isn't over-rated, it is one of the few standardized tests that can be used to compare students against each other. The concepts on the SAT aren't even hard at all, if you are proficient in math up to Algebra 2, you ace the math section. The critical reading doesn't require much effort because the questions are stated in the passage and not much analyzing has to be done. The sentence completions require a person to use context clues and have some sort of vocabulary span. The grammar section tests basic grammar, which should be mastered by the time a student has completed Freshman year of High school or earlier. The writing section is viewed as a rough draft, so it doesn't have to be perfect, just show a logical progression of ideas and be organized and you're fine. </p>

<p>Maybe if it wasn't 40 something bucks it would be better, but the test is simply too easy to prep for to be over-rated. There are so many books to use and online resources to help a student do well, it is up to the student to use what is available to him or her. </p>

<p>It would be a better test if it were somewhat as hard as the AP exam; therefore, it would test a higher level of critical thinking skills as well.</p>

<p>As the person above stated, smart people find a way to answer the questions, even if the approach is radical. The not a good test-taker excuse is getting over used and students these days usually take enough tests where they should be comfortable with them. </p>

<p>Just my opinion.</p>

<p>"I do things totally differently from like...how my chem teacher explains it. Her way might be simpler, faster - but I understand my method. I can reason through most Chem/Physics math problems without learning the "teacher's" or the "princeton review's" method. I don't do the problems on the Math IIc the easiest way or even the best way - I just do em...and it usually works out."</p>

<p>I was under the impression we were discussing the SAT I. The SAT II is a completely different story, and I think that would fall under the AP category more because it is subject-oriented. </p>

<p>"How can you "not be good at testing." What does that even MEAN, other than "I can't do this"?" There was a recent study by some random university about how smart people sometimes do worse on tests because they can't stand the pressure, the "I have to do well because blah blah blah" and many have OCD (thus they are obsessive about checking, and then take more time). There was also a dicussion of this on the parent's forum. Yeah, so it may mean "I can't do this" because it means that you can't handle pressure - now that may be a bad thing, because there is always pressure - but the SAT is supposed to measure intelligence, and at the point where there are other factors - personality/genetic ones that really cannot be changed - that skew its results - its really quite worthless. And again, the argument that it discriminates against lower socio-economic classes because they don't have the money to "learn the test" and don't have the 2000 to blow on SAT prep class over the summer - or even the time, because they have to work for their family. </p>

<p>"As the person above stated, smart people find a way to answer the questions, even if the approach is radical. The not a good test-taker excuse is getting over used and students these days usually take enough tests where they should be comfortable with them."</p>

<p>again, same thing. i should google the study, but I'm too lazy. It was on netscape a while ago. </p>

<p>"It would be a better test if it were somewhat as hard as the AP exam; therefore, it would test a higher level of critical thinking skills as well."</p>

<p>I was on a similar APs are bad board...yeah, it could be harder, but that means the curve would be way easier. </p>

<p>"The SAT isn't over-rated, it is one of the few standardized tests that can be used to compare students against each other. The concepts on the SAT aren't even hard at all, if you are proficient in math up to Algebra 2, you ace the math section. The critical reading doesn't require much effort because the questions are stated in the passage and not much analyzing has to be done. The sentence completions require a person to use context clues and have some sort of vocabulary span. The grammar section tests basic grammar, which should be mastered by the time a student has completed Freshman year of High school or earlier. The writing section is viewed as a rough draft, so it doesn't have to be perfect, just show a logical progression of ideas and be organized and you're fine."</p>

<p>many people have completed Calculus and have to re-study Algebra 2 - does that mean they are 'punished' because they advance too quickly for the SAT? Also, it tests completely different stuff - is v. different from high school tests - than actually Algebra 2. So getting an A in Alg 2 does not mean an 800 on SAT II Math or even a high score. You may have all this "you're fine if you do this" but its been empirically proven that you're not. Many people admitted to the Ivies have lower SATs, and not all of them are athletes or talented in other areas. Not to say that the Ivies are incredibly smart. And a lot of people - as one person has pointed out - who get high GPAs and are 'smart' don't do well. The correlation is only .6 - that's pretty bad correlation for a test that supposedly measures "intelligence."</p>

<p>"That kind of skill can be taught, but finding it for yourself is the right way to approach it." Yeah, I agree with that. But again, that's a different kind of intelligence. Someone with that kind of potential might not have the engineering/writing potential that another child has. All this means is that SAT can never test for all kinds of potential and intelligence, because those really can't be 'standardized'. Although, at the point where there IS no alternative, its the only thing we have to do such a standardized comparison. </p>

<p>"True smart kids don't "Learn the SAT" - they just do it." Who are you to define "true smart kids"? What about the kids who are really define and know this? One could argue that an ability to adapt to the system is a type of intelligence.</p>

<p>ebonytear said: "There was a recent study by some random university about how smart people sometimes do worse on tests because they can't stand the pressure"</p>

<p>I say: Hello?!?! Isn't that a good thing. People who can't stand the pressure will not do as well with college exams if they cannot stand the pressure. Also one needs to be able to stand the pressure to succeed in your career. If your an important executive of a company you need to be able to make smart decisions under pressure all the time. Kids who go to top notch institutions are generally students who can handle academic pressure along with other types of pressure better. </p>

<p>Your argument makes me appreciate the SAT more rather than look down on it. Colleges want students who can handle pressure, whether its academic or wutever. Colleges want their students to succeed in their fields to give the college a good name. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc. all have to make smart desicions mostly under pressure.</p>

<p>I don't mind an easier curve for the SAT if the material is harder, then it would be a better representation of college exams. Like college exams, AP exams are about equivalent in difficulty and show if studentss did such and such on the AP exam, they would probably do about the same on the college exam for that course and the curves are better because of the type of scores. </p>

<p>The current level for the SAT can be beaten just by approaching the test correctly with all the resources currently available. The APs can't be beaten in the same manner, a person must understand concepts to do well, that is the difference between the two tests. </p>

<p>As for the math part, math progressively builds on itself; therefore, if a student is taking Calculus, he/she already has the Alg2 foundation that is needed to do Calculus. He/she isn't being punished when taking the SAT because he/she has an even stronger math foundation with Calculus, which is a course that is very good with making students think differently...and this critical thinking can be used as an advantage for the SAT. Brushing up on Alg2 might be needed, but not much would be needed. Plus the SAT doesn't cover all types of Alg2 topics, just basic ones like functions, etc, which are widely used in Calculus anyways. So you're getting an advantage if you excel in the math curriculum.
And like I said, there are many resources that can be used to approach the SAT, so a person wouldn't have to really brush up on material, just know how to attack types of questions.</p>

<p>The SAT if anything may be underrated...how else are we supposed to compare students from different environments? For example, at my school an 84 is a C...at the local public school a C starts at like 79 or 78....at the end of the day you need a test that is universal across the board to really compare students. A 3.3 student going to Exeter with a 1550 might be more qualified then Joe Average with a 3.95 from a local public school taking classes like earth science junior year who got a 1210. This is reality...and I think it would be cool if the same was done with LSAT's and MCAT's...perhaps then people wouldn't have to choose between Engineering or (Law or Medicine). I don't know about you, but I would not like colleges to only have GPA to look at. That would put those of us who go to harder private schools, harder public schools, load up on AP's, etc etc at a major disadvantage. Same with the SAT Essay. You'd be suprised at how many 4.0's haven't hammered down grammer. Without spell + grammer check no one is there to help :D (find my spelling mistakes in that sentence and get a cookie!)</p>

<p>I have the personal experience to tell you that the SAT is NOTHING like college exams. I've taken 4 of them at Cal Poly Pomona, and those...er...were no different from high school exams, except a little longer <em>sigh</em></p>

<p>However, the exams I've taken at Harvey Mudd College are entirely different from ANYTHING College Board has put out. Basically, in class, what we did is learned about concepts. On test day, we had to put these concepts to use on problems we had NEVER seen before. Example:
For two class periods, we learned about ISCAL, an assembly language. We wrote a power function, and recursive power function, and a program that solves the Towers of Hanoi. On the exam, guess what? We had to write a sorting algorithm. (And not a commonly known one, mind you...no Quicksort or Mergesort here...) Assembly language is NO FUN on an exam. It's even worse when you DON'T get a computer to test your code on, AND it's for a problem you've never seen before.</p>

<p>Spetsnaz, I think the SAT shouldn't be the thing to counter grade inflation. Here's a wacky idea, but why not make a <em>research project</em> a requirement for competitive college apps? Many people already submit or mention them anyway, so why not just standardize it?</p>

<p>I can foresee an argument against this: "Economically disadvantaged students can't do research projects." Yet they're supposed to pay for prep classes and fund ECs? Research projects don't necessarily require money...they just take time and effort</p>

<p>confidential: do you not see my response to that argument? I anticipated it in my argument, but the SAT is not supposed to test how successful you are supposed to be in life, but originally 'scholastic aptitude'. Furthermore, lots of college can be ESSAYS depending on your major - timed pressure from over-emphasized standardized tests are very different from those types of pressure. And what if those students do fine on the AP, which is supposedly more like college finals? Those are supposedly less 'standardized' because they are subject-oriented. So that doesn't matter, because colleges use the SAT to measure how intelligent you are, not how susceptible to pressure. Furthermore, those students have different types of pressure, and can still suceed. Are all jobs that pressure-intensive? No. Especially research jobs. That is more of 'discover something new' than 'there's only so much time' pressure. Are R and D jobs less important than CEOs? Yah. CEO, depending on which company, are also subject to the Board of Executives' critique. Furthermore, R and D jobs fuel our economy - hence need for scientific education emphasis (after Sputnik, NASA, etc.) Beyond that, SAT pressure can be different from college pressure - most if it is from the not having enough time - so its more time than pressure - especially for things such as essays. AGAIN, an argument that no one ever responds to is that there are different kinds of intelligence that the SAT can never and will never test - hence it is a flawed predictor of 'intelligence'. Writers? Artists? You're leaning a bit on the professional side there. Not everyone wants to be a lawyer/doctor/corporate exec.</p>

<p>"I don't mind an easier curve for the SAT if the material is harder, then it would be a better representation of college exams. Like college exams, AP exams are about equivalent in difficulty and show if studentss did such and such on the AP exam," - there was an argument about this on the other board - THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT to college exams. I just visited Berekely, bunked with a couple of friends who are taking their finals right now. The tests are way different - for one, you don't get the wonderful curve. and 2, AP never covers nearly as much...that is why schools like Cal and Stanford only give you ELECTIVE credit for APs and DO NOT LET YOU PUT THOSE CREDITS TOWARD YOUR MAJOR. I heard it straight from Stanford graduates. </p>

<p>"they would probably do about the same on the college exam for that course and the curves are better because of the type of scores." they rarely curve college classes - even Chemistry 1. My cousin got a 91, and she got a 91, and didn't get the awesome curve that APs have. they would not do the same. AP exams are never a predictor of college success; many a student with a 5 on APs has had to repeat the course again in college because they attempted to move up to, say Chem 2, and died from not knowing anything. Curves may be better in HS, but not in college. </p>

<p>"The current level for the SAT can be beaten just by approaching the test correctly with all the resources currently available. The APs can't be beaten in the same manner, a person must understand concepts to do well, that is the difference between the two tests."</p>

<p>Again, the difference in pressure here. SAT is more learn the test, and learn to take it in so much time, while AP tests more subject-oriented material. what is that argument in response to anyway? Besides, SAT would never become like AP because its not how well you know the subject, its "what is your 'scholastic aptitude'?"</p>

<p>AGAIN; you say u can beat SAt with all resources currently available. Those resources u refer to probably include test prep material/classes that some socio-economically disadvantaged cannot afford. Again, no body responded to their argument either. Its elitist.</p>

<p>"As for the math part, math progressively builds on itself; therefore, if a student is taking Calculus, he/she already has the Alg2 foundation that is needed to do Calculus. He/she isn't being punished when taking the SAT because he/she has an even stronger math foundation with Calculus, which is a course that is very good with making students think differently..." again, yes you think differently. Then when you attempt to apply that sort of higher-level thinking on SAT, you 'out-think it' and do poorly. And don't kid me; Calculus does not need that much of an Algebra 2/Geometry etc. foundation. What part of Calc do you need Alg. 2 and Geometry for? I really don't know, and I took it this year. </p>

<p>"and this critical thinking can be used as an advantage for the SAT. Brushing up on Alg2 might be needed, but not much would be needed. Plus the SAT doesn't cover all types of Alg2 topics, just basic ones like functions, etc, which are widely used in Calculus anyways." yeah, but functions are only a small part of the alg 2 curriculum - what about factoring, completing the square...all the stuff I forgot... lol. besides, in calculus you don't cover functions in the same manner as you cover functions in Alg 2. You talk about limits and derivatives of functions, rather than the random stuff you do in Alg. 2.</p>

<p>"So you're getting an advantage if you excel in the math curriculum." No. Have you taken calc and did you get an advantage? Many people I have talked to - is biased sample, I know - have had troubles, because yeah, you forget it. Because you don't use that geometry/alg. 2 stuff in calculus, and even if you do, its not in the same manner as in those earlier classes. I think ur being a bit to idealistic with this idea. </p>

<p>"And like I said, there are many resources that can be used to approach the SAT, so a person wouldn't have to really brush up on material, just know how to attack types of questions."</p>

<p>And how do you do that? Test prep classes - that once again, socio-economically disadvantaged students can't afford. For some reason, you totally ignored that argument. But yeah, SAT is elitist too.</p>

<p>spets, i dont think its underrated. I think its overrated because theres just toooo much emphasis on it. I mean i kno ppl who are just good at takin tests! Wouldnt it be so cool if you could just read all the MC answers on any test?? And like the Free response on any test is written out for you but no one else could see it? I wish that when i took the SAt all the right answers like stuck out to me, man that would be sweet.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Spetsnaz, I think the SAT shouldn't be the thing to counter grade inflation. Here's a wacky idea, but why not make a <em>research project</em> a requirement for competitive college apps? Many people already submit or mention them anyway, so why not just standardize it?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>A research project? Maybe this would work for applying to a liberal arts 13th grade type thing, but for Engineering etc you really need some concrete math scores. Seems to me that this would be a broad and widely "ununiversal" meaning it would be harder to compare results between students (not to mention the possibility of cheating? could you imagine?) As far as EC's go, they could adopt the Canadian method of focusing on academics. Prep Classes? I didn't take any....you can go to the library and pick up many books if you are into that or take a prep class at school...or just study text books like anyone else. Seriously I just took the new SAT May 7, frankly I wouldn't waste time preparing for that. Algebra 2/Geometry classes were enough preparation for me. As far as English goes, preparation might help for that but it is the English language, no special prep course is needed.</p>

<p>Spetsnaz Op: 1) its not accurate predictor of intelligence b/c it is standardized. and 2) colleges know Exeter. They keep profiles of who applied from your school, and have a pretty good idea of what your school is like. That's why they accept tons of Exeter students each year (the Ivies) who are not necessarily the top in their class, but reject lots of public high school valedictorians. Colleges look at you within your high school situation, and see how well you excelled under the conditions you were given. SAT is really not needed because they have that information. </p>

<p>"I have the personal experience to tell you that the SAT is NOTHING like college exams. I've taken 4 of them at Cal Poly Pomona, and those...er...were no different from high school exams, except a little longer <em>sigh</em>" Yes. And especially true for elite colleges, like Harvey Mudd. APs and SATs are really really mutated versions of 'college tests'. </p>

<p>"I can foresee an argument against this: "Economically disadvantaged students can't do research projects." Yet they're supposed to pay for prep classes and fund ECs? Research projects don't necessarily require money...they just take time and effort"</p>

<p>actually my argument would be that you'd have to account not only for science research projects but humanities things like essays. which are more subjective.</p>

<p>"besides, in calculus you don't cover functions in the same manner as you cover functions in Alg 2. You talk about limits and derivatives of functions, rather than the random stuff you do in Alg. 2."</p>

<p>Of course, if you tackle Calculus college style, you don't have that excuse...that's why I used a college text that Cal Poly, UCI, and USC all use...but then again, that was way back in freshman/sophomore year, so I might not be the best person to address for the math section lol</p>

<p>Spetsnaz Op: they don't have prep classes at public schools. Exeter is def. AN EXCEPTION. </p>

<p>"A research project? Maybe this would work for applying to a liberal arts 13th grade type thing, but for Engineering etc you really need some concrete math scores." On the contrary, it works better for science people. For Engineering, if you can design a project/work out the math in hs, you can suceed in college (its a lot of projects anyways in college). Liberal arts = essays = subjective. </p>

<p>"Algebra 2/Geometry classes were enough preparation for me." Yeah, not Calc. Different theories/logic in each one!</p>

<p>tanonev: Eh, I used the book Berkeley uses. There was like 1 section in the beginning summarizing Pre-Calc and that was it.</p>

<p>I'm gonna play devil's advocate and back up my research project plan...</p>

<p>Give the research project to a professor in the department that the applicant wants to be in. After all, since the dept has to deal with the student for 4 years, shouldn't the dept have advance knowledge of what the student is (and isn't) capable of?</p>

<p>Sure, it'll be rather subjective, but there are some things that you can tell pretty easily from a research project: (1) dedication, (2) thoroughness, and (3) originality. After all, aren't the college essays subjective?</p>

<p>SAT can be bested w/out prep classes. To nab my 1600, I just took the verbal section of the SAT a couple of times from a prep book. I never even looked at the advice they gave. And I didn't buy the prep book...I got it from a friend :) So you don't have to break the bank to beat the SAT...</p>

<p>u got a 1600??? holy ****!!</p>