<p>feel free to refute this if you want, just something I was thinking about.</p>
<p>the PSAT is taken with little to no prep, in general (no one i know, myself included, studied for them). it is a one-shot deal-- no retakes, no superscoring-- so barring any extenuating circumstances (illness, little regard to their importance), it's a better gauge of innate aptitude than its beefed up counterpart. people come to the SATs armed to the teeth with hours upon hours of prep and test-taking strategies. </p>
<p>to me, at least, a high PSAT is a lot more impressive.</p>
<p>and by "aptitude," I of course mean whatever quality that the SATs intend to test (essentially test-taking ability).</p>
<p>A lot of people actually do study for the PSAT. Studying for the SAT is essentially studying for the PSAT too since the tests are basically the same. The PSAT is just shorter. I do agree that the PSAT is somewhat more impressive because you only have one chance.</p>
<p>I know a ton of people who studied for the PSAT.
Although I defnitely do know a lot more people who studied for the SAT.</p>
<p>You bring up a good point, you only have one shot at the PSAT. However, because of that...a few little mistakes hurt more and may not be a true reflection of aptitude.</p>
<p>I think I personally did better on the SATs because I felt they mattered more. I didn't study for either, but was definitely more successful on the SATs...perhaps they are just more my style.</p>
<p>But yeah, the ability to do well on a test definitely shows more the first time, as opposed to taking it multiple times and super scoring.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Everyone takes it at the same time as opposed to seven different months for the SATs. It gives you a better feel of how you stack up against high school students across the nation.</p></li>
<li><p>No essay. I wouldn't complain if they substituted the essay for extra mc questions for the SAT. Both times i scored over 700 on the mc, but 8 essays dragged me down. 25 min essays are horrible for measuring aptitiude.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^
Which proves nothing except that you're pretty smart. FWIW, I think the PSAT's are a little easier than the SATs but because people don't study for them, you only have one chance, and one mistake hurts you a lot more than it does on the SAT's, PSAT scores are lower and a worse reflection of your aptitude than the SATs.</p>
<p>i took it in sophomore year without caring about it and did poorly. I took the real thing with no prep being as careful as possible and improved 500 points. Nonetheless, the psat, when taken as a junior, matters. People want to be NMFs so really it's probably equally valid as the SAT. I don't see why it would be more valid.</p>
<p>I don't really agree with the premise that any of these tests really test your aptitude neccessarily. But, at least for me the SATs tested more things for a longer amount of time and as a result are truly a better reflection. When I took the PSATS in the back of my mind I was always like this really doesn't matter, for the SATs I definitely did not have that mindset. So who is to say that didn't make the difference in scores?</p>
<p>arguably, the point of the SAT is no longer to test aptitude - that's why SAT is now an initialism, not the former "Scholastic Aptitude Test." Admission officers realize that one can and will prep for the SAT, and do not encourage taking the test cold.</p>
<p>PSAT doesn't have an essay portion, which IMO can bring the grades of a lot of people down (especially asians :( ). Furthermore, I believe that the SAT writing portion is a great addition to the SAT since it does, to a degree, test your writing skills.</p>
<p>PSATs cant be further from being anything close to a aptitude test. 80 percent of the kids taking it don't give a crap about the test and the other 20 percent are in a state of panic. Not to mention that a couple of stupid mistakes will push scores miserably low. The SATs allow students to work to the best of their own ability. Doing well on the test is also indicative of the effort a student puts into studying or just how "gifted" another student is.</p>
<p>"taken with little to no prep...a better gauge of innate aptitude" I think that's like saying ten year olds who make more free throws than others have an innate aptitude for basketball. They might, but, given the level of competition, it's the one who trains AND has some knack for the activity that sets them apart.</p>
<p>First, most people at the top end of the spectrum have prepared for the PSAT. Improvement in standardized testing scores is indicative of aptitude (ability to grasp new concepts and apply them). If someone doesnt improve from their PSAT, it is a signal that they have reached their "peak" in terms of test-taking ability, and had already acquired the knowledge which those who study for the SAT seek to attain. </p>
<p>In other words, standardized testing is only a true measure of relative aptitude if EVERYONE has studied for it, not the other way around.</p>
<p>It would be impressive for a sophomore to get a high score on psat. But in the junior year, most people study for sat either by prep course or review books and in the meantime they are also studying for psat.</p>