<p>Am I allowed to put this link here? Sorry if it's not permitted, moderators! But it is topical so please let it stay :) <em>smiles sweetly</em></p>
<p>Yes. The SAT tests how much one has practiced for the SAT.</p>
<p>^Exactly. Which also raises the point that income is a factor towards test scores (to pay for prep classes, books, tutors, and taking the actual test itself, and so on).</p>
<p>Sorry, see CCs TOS about links to commercial sites. </p>
<p>Hint: it is only the actual link that is an infraction ;).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I really do not believe that it is fundamentally proper to institute a binary distinction towards what constitutes academic qualification. Rather, academic merit exists on a continuum and is not the sole quality that should properly assess an applicant.</p>
<p>The results of this thread will overwhelmingly agree that an SAT of less than 2100 should not disqualify an applicant. You may receive more diverse results, however, if you requested others to consider the current 1800 threshold that is instituted by some of the HYPSM-caliber schools. Even at 1800, I would say yes despite the meager odds of admission at that score distinction.</p>
<p>Also, we assume that you are referring to Yale (or one of its peer institutions), correct?</p>
<p>While I’m inclined to say of course they should be considered, it would be nice to know why 2100, specifically, was chosen as the ‘baseline’ as it seems to be a rather arbitrary score so that, perhaps, a more complete and detailed answer could be given.</p>
<p>As well, to anyone that answers no, students with <2100’s shouldn’t be considered - s/he must explain why a student with a 2090 should not be considered, while a student with a 2100 should be considered. It seems, to me at least, to be similar to the predicament presented by the Sorites Paradox.</p>
<p>Yes, I completely agree. A binary distinction at such a threshhold (or at any score for that matter) is unreasonable.</p>
<p>A high SAT score only proves that one is adept at standardized test taking. Other factors should be considered to determine whether or not an applicant can handle the academic demands of any particular college or university.
Consider an applicant with perfect 800 scores in CR & Writing, but only a 500 in math. This totals 2100 / 2400. Should this applicant be admitted to a top notch engineering or heavily quantitative business school? What if the same student wanted to be an English or Journalism major but earned only “Cs” & low “Bs” in high school in subjects related to his intended major course of study? Conversely, consider the student who performs poorly on standardized tests, cannot afford a private tutor for the SAT, yet aces all of the most academically demanding courses in high school & receives stellar teacher recommendations. Who has earned a spot at Yale? Would you offer admission to the overachiever with repeated patterns of success or to the high scoring lazy, unmotivated student ?
Some foreign education systems are based almost exclusively on standardized test scores. For enhanced insights into your suggestion, you may want to ask someone familiar with the Chinese education structure.</p>
<p>
No single emoticon can express my reaction to this…
So I will use multiple. :D:o:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Absolutely</p>
<p>Hell no…</p>
<p>Hell yeah…</p>
<p>no offense but…i honestly hope not everyone speaks like mifune at yale o_0.</p>
<p>“The SAT tests how much one has practiced for the SAT” ???</p>
<p>It’s a nice sound byte but not a truism. It might make some kids feel better to believe it, but…? I know a lot of kids to a lot of practice, and maybe it helps them some, just have the experience. But you can’t take a kid whose first time was 500/500/500 and have him study until he’s blue in the face for years and guarantee you’ll turn that into an 800/800/800. </p>
<p>Kid in my house went standby for SAT as a Jr and got 2210, and standby for ACT as a Jr and got a 34. Could she study and get better? Maybe, maybe not. But she did NO prep for either. She studied some for SAT II Math 2 and still only got a 700. I know someone else with a perfect score who didn’t do any prep. I know LOTS of kids who did LOTS of prep with very mediocre scores. </p>
<p>Preparation = SAT score is just not a true equation.</p>
<p>Also…FWIW…Oxford gives a pretty finite requirement that one will need either three 700s on SAT or three scores of 5 on APs to have any sort of “competitive consideration” (some term like that). </p>
<p>So…SHOULD anyone under 2100 be considered? Only each college knows what they want, what their pool is like, if they’ll dip under that with a strong remaining application, etc. I say, sure-why not? What if a person could only afford to take the SAT or ACT, and only once, yet they were ill with the flu, yet had a 4.0 and was valedictorian of 800 kids, etc. ? One sick day gonna make or break an applicant? I hope not.</p>
<p>i think the SAT ought to be abolished. It is a ridiculous waste of time and money for high school students, that teaches them nothing other than how to take a standardized test. Once you are admitted to a top college, you will never need to take a standardized test again in order to graduate. In fact, there are very few, if any exams you will take there that consist of multiple choice questions; rather the exams will be papers, short answers and essays. There is no evidence that persons who achieve a certain SAT score fare better in life, and the SAT score is only slightly predictive of Freshman achievement and after that it is predictive of nothing.</p>
<p>lol @ 000ace000 
I hope so myself.</p>
<p>To Motion: 2100 is a typical threshold (at least, as I have noticed on CC) since ideally when it is divided evenly, it means an applicant scored at least 700 in each section.</p>
<p>Bay…you say one will never again have to take a standardized test in order to graduate (once in a top college). You don’t take the SAT/ACT to graduate either. It’s an admissions exam. And those types of exams DO continue in college (MCATs, LSATs, GREs). </p>
<p>And, in some colleges, you DO have to take an exam to graduate (reiterating that you said this wasn’t true). Oxford, for example - since you mention top colleges. I believe pretty much your entire pass/fail (with honors/with distinction) type “grade” is based on your final exams. They don’t even ASK for a GPA. There is no place on the UCAS to include it except if one wanted to add it to “extra info”. They care only about results in AP tests, SAT, ACT.</p>
<p>It’s interesting how all the critics of the SAT only attack it, without ever suggesting anything it could improve on. I understand that the SAT is not designed to be an IQ test, and that those with poor scores on it aren’t necessarily less intelligent, but no matter what, there does seem to be some sort of correlation between both, even if it’s not very strong. I don’t think a person with, say, an IQ of 90 (10 points below average), would be able to pull off a 2300+ SAT score no matter how much he/she studied.</p>
<p>of course they’ll be considered if “being considered” means glancing at the test scores and then tossing away the application</p>