<p>Yes!</p>
<p>An SAT scores says nothing about how hardworking or how smart a person is. The SAT only measures how well the student performs on standardized tests and is thus irrelevant to college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an absurd and incorrect position: SAT scores have strong correlations with college success and IQ scores.</p>
<p>That old saying that the SAT only measures how well one takes the SAT is a good motivational tool for getting kids to study, but it is not true.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a strong correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, a high SAT score does not cause one to have a high IQ; they have an underlying cause: intelligence. Indeed, other factors influence both, such as educational opportunities; nonetheless, the correlation does imply a foundational causation in this case.</p>
<p>I was referring to GPA in college, not IQ. Many smart students fail out of college because they don’t know how to study and manage their time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. What relevance does this fact hold?</p>
<p>Just because a student got a high score on the SAT doesn’t mean he will succeed in college.</p>
<p>yes, but that does not invalidate the fact that SAT is at least something of a barometer of a student’s achievement/intelligence. i don’t really understand how it would invalidate that…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, of course. What relevance does this fact hold? You argued that “SAT scores [say] nothing about how hardworking or how smart a person is.”</p>
<p>Also, many students who do not score as well on the SAT often become high achievers in college. If SAT scores cannot even indicate success in college, what place does it have in college admissions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do I even have to explicitly point out how flawed your thinking is? I’ll analogize: I have a friend who is six foot six inches tall; he does not play basketball. I know someone else who is five foot seven inches tall who does play basketball. Does this mean that short people are more likely than tall people to play basketball or that there is no relationship between height and one’s likelihood of playing basketball? No.</p>
<p>How so?</p>
<p>I was just offering my honest opinion. I didn’t say if it’s right or wrong, so you don’t need to attack my arguments like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I apologize if I came across as hostile. I am merely attempting to debate you, as I believe you to be wrong.</p>
<p>Okay, sorry about that. I’d like to hear your argument about why we should keep the SAT. </p>
<p>Do you think the SAT really does help colleges make good decisions as to whether they should accept a particular student?</p>
<p>What don’t people get about the SAT and why it should be used for college? It measures basic ability that is necessary to do well in college. Just because someone has a a high SAT doesn’t mean they will succeed in college, but someone who score a 400 on all 3 sections won’t be admitted to selective because they won’t be able to handle the workload.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT is a well written and competently administered test that assesses skills that are vital to college success. Moreover, it is able to offer a slightly different perspective from that indicated by one’s GPA, as it is not completely achievement-focused.</p>
<p>The Critical Reading section tests one’s vocabulary and ability to, indeed, critically analyze text. Similarly, the Mathematics section relies on one’s ability to problem solve creatively, and the Writing section tests one’s ability to apply grammatical concepts and to discriminate opaque writing from clear communication.</p>
<p>The SAT’s role in indicating potential success is invaluable and probably under-appreciated by admissions officers, who are perhaps swayed by the fact that a GPA represents years of work. GPA’s, however, are not standardized among various high schools and thus are not usually very meaningfully telling. Class rank (when complemented with the context of schools’ average SAT scores) and SAT scores should be the most important factors in college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, of course. But obviously his father attended Yale before he did and was president before he was. Because of these connections, George W followed in his father’s footsteps to attain his degree of political success. Consequently, he inevitably changed the course of United States history (as does every US President). Essentially, my example denoted an instance of accomplishment attained primarily by birthright rather than something achieved predominantly by the display of exceptional merit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Discussing George W. Bush’s competency is something that I do not believe any of us wish to discuss. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of the post-graduational success of HYP students is truly attributed to their abilities. But often, the name on a college degree draws a parallel to a student’s overall aptitude and thus makes their services more desirable when entering the workforce, particularly when the degree comes from a very reputable institution. </p>
<p>This is precisely why the competition at universities such as HYPS is so competitive and that students and their families are willing to invest so much money into an education at a prestigious institution. It is clear that students and the general public are not ignorant regarding college quality. Yet many still loathe to concede that the heading on an undergraduate degree matters. The name of the institution itself may not have had an effect on one’s motivation or ability to perform, but the institution and its consequent reputation may indeed hold some degree of influence on future educational and career prospects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do. It is an objective standard that quantifies the academic aptitudes of all incoming applicants. As a standardized measure, it offsets any discrepancies between the grading procedures and difficulties of different high schools. That is, it offers a practical measure to draw realistic comparison between students’ abilities.</p>